Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods – Causes, Consequences and Countermeasures

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the Motion.

Sir, let me state from the outset that the issue goes beyond tackling online falsehoods per se. More fundamentally, it is about maintaining our sovereignty, as well as the multi-racial nature of our society, by ensuring that those who wish to do us harm by peddling falsehoods online do not succeed.

As we have seen in other countries, deliberate campaigns to proliferate falsehoods online have caused panic and confusion, worsened societal fault-lines and eroded trust in public institutions. If unchecked, they may result in grave consequences for the country's social and political discourse. Let us not forget that Singapore has fallen victim to foreign interference through falsehood and misinformation before.

Mr Shanmugam just spoke about the Singapore Herald's misinformation and campaign in the early-1970s. In the same period, the Eastern Sun was exposed by the Government for receiving HKD$8 million from a communist intelligence agency from Hong Kong. The funds were provided on the condition that they would not post the People's Republic of China on major issues and publish news items of the communists' choice. The newspaper eventually folded in 1971. So, we were fortunate to nip this in the bud early enough, so that this campaign did not sink our young nation back in the day. But today, such orchestrated campaigns can wreck even more harm.

In the Internet age, falsehoods can go viral in seconds. Digital content can be easily manipulated to make it more provocative and stir emotions more easily. Anyone can publish or share falsehoods online, even from halfway around the world. And the net result is that online falsehoods can destabilise societies far more easily than ever before.

Take, for example, the example of the now defunct, The Real Singaporean or TRS website, which my Ministry shut down in May 2015. TRS published doctored articles which sensational headlines as clickbait to increase traffic to its website so as to inflate its readership and earn more advertising dollars.

In February 2015, TRS published a false article on a Filipino family complaining about the noise from a Thaipusam procession involving Indian Singaporeans. Such an incident never happened. The article was deliberately fabricated and falsely attributed the incident to innocent parties to fuel anti-foreigner sentiments. It went viral and created tensions between our local Indian community and the Filipinos living in Singapore.

Fortunately, we acted swiftly to prevent TRS from doing further harm. The two editors of the TRS were convicted in court for sedition and the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) cancelled the Class Licence of the TRS website.

Sir, recent events worldwide also show that foreign countries can also use online falsehoods to undermine confidence and trust in national institutions and the electoral process. It was estimated that 126 million Americans were exposed to 80,000 pieces of Russian-linked content targeted to influence the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential Elections.

In the United Kingdom (UK), foreign Twitter accounts posted four tweets in the month leading up to the UK Referendum, such as how millions of Turkish people will move to the UK, if the UK voted to remain in the European Union (EU). Such falsehoods aimed to influence voters and the outcomes of elections. These outcomes in some cases changed the course of the countries, like what Brexit appears to have done.

But let me clarify that we are not against technology. Technology is agnostic. It is the people and actors abusing technology to spread online falsehoods that are the problem. And indeed, technology has improved our lives in many ways, and while technology can be used to divide societies, so too can it be used to bring people together, such as by connecting communities across the world, or mobilising volunteers during crises. That said, as technology continues to push the frontiers of reality, it will be easier to create false information and damage societies.

So, for instance, in 2016, Professors at Stanford University and the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg demonstrated how technologies can record a video of people tin real-time, effectively manipulating their expressions to reflect the message the perpetrators want to convey.

Adobe launched a new product in 2016 called "Photoshop for Audio", which allows users to feed about 10 to 20 minutes of someone's voice into an application. The user then type any words he or she wants to say, which will be expressed in the same exact voice. The resultant voice sounds virtually indistinguishable from the real and does not sound computer-generated at all. This can be used to impersonate anyone, even Heads of States.

Singapore is especially vulnerable to this for several reasons. First, we are a small and multi-racial society that can be easily overwhelmed by a larger adversary, taking advantage of our societal fault-lines. Second, Singapore has one of the highest smartphone penetration rates in the world at almost 150%. People can easily access the Internet and social media on their smartphones anytime and anywhere, and hence, are more susceptible to the spread of online falsehoods. And third, while we have a population that is technology-savvy, it is an entirely different matter, whether we have the ability discern truth from falsehood.

A Government poll in May 2017 showed that one in four Singaporeans frequently come across online news that was not fully accurate. Two in three of them were unable to recognise some or all of the falsities. And one in four admitted to sharing news that they later found was fake.

Sir, efforts to tackle this problem are already on the way. Organisations, such as the Media Literary Council and Government agencies like the NLB, have developed programmes and resources to raise public standards of media literacy.

While public education remains our first line of defence, it is not enough. Mechanisms need to be put in place to respond swiftly to these falsehoods. So, we need an inclusive approach to address these issues holistically, involving not only the public sector, but the private and people sectors too. And we need a broader national conversation about this issue so everyone has a shared understanding of the threat and a sense of ownership about the solution.

Hence, Sir, I fully support this Motion to convene a Select Committee on online falsehood. This will allow us to consult widely and tap on the collective wisdom of the community and stakeholders.

Sir, we look forward to hearing its deliberations and suggestions, so that we can keep Singapore a sovereign, cohesive and united society together.

Sir, thank you for letting me join in on this debate. I have three points – all three points support the intention to refer the issue of deliberate online falsehoods to a Select Committee.

First, even as we try to tackle the problem of deliberate online falsehoods upstream, to be truly inoculated to the adverse impacts of falsehoods, people need discernment to differentiate between truth and falsehoods. This is because of the ubiquitous nature of online falsehoods. I refer to paragraph 14(b) of the Green Paper to put things into perspective: 36,746 Twitter accounts generated approximately 1.4 million automated, election-related tweets. Additionally, the repudiation of an article as false is often announced hours after the viral impact and seldom reaches all the audiences. False news may also continue to circulate making the article that repudiated it seem outdated.

According to a study done by the Communications and New Media Department at NUS and the Institute of Policy Studies, younger Singaporeans have an optimism bias. That survey showed that Singaporeans who are more optimistically biased tend to "evaluate the news they receive on social media as less credible" and that they "tend to search for more information". This scepticism that leads people to dig deeper is encouraging.

Nevertheless, the value of repetition and perceived corroboration may pose difficulty with automated accounts and multiple websites putting up the same unreliable information.

Furthermore, even as people need to disbelieve falsehood, they need to be able to discern what is true, what is reliable. An article entitled "US kids suss out the truth about fake news" by Washington Post and later picked up by The Straits Times had this to say, I quote, "While they once feared teenagers would fall for everything they read online, now teachers are increasingly concerned that their students will grow up not believing anything they read – or worse, believing the difference between what is real and what is fake is a matter of choice." That would be dangerous. What is important is discernment and not just disbelief. Therefore, empowering people to discern between truth and lies is of paramount importance. Only then can we increase our resistance to the insidiousness of falsehood.

This is not an easy task. Though the phenomenon of "fake news" is not a new 21st century phenomenon but more like an upgraded or multiplied upgraded version of rumours, the rise of technology has exacerbated the issue. In an age of increasing technology sophistication, artificial intelligence can fabricate a scenery that had not existed. It is possible to make a video showing Barack Obama saying things he did not actually say – all without compromising the perceived authenticity of the video, a point alluded to by Minister Yaacob in his speech.

Even without sophisticated technology, a simple deliberate miscaptioning and hence, repurposing of an old picture or video, can paint a very misleading picture. For example, in Italy, a government Minister's appearance at a funeral was falsely captioned to make it appear as if she was mourning a mafia boss. Using an apparently trustworthy news article but adding unverified and misleading facts can turn groups of people against each other. When that happens, the corroboration of articles seems to enhance the perceived credibility of the article rather than expose its falsehood.

Other ways to increase the audience reach and strengthen perceived veracity by enhancing popularity are through automated bots and phantom accounts. Social media has also become a platform for individuals and larger entities to transcend traditional territorial boundaries to irresponsibly wield the sword of the keyboard to manipulate politics, destabilise a country, increase polarisation or to simply get rich. The Internet has enabled a cloak of anonymity to increase the lack of accountability and enable an easy masquerade of a credible news site through subtle changes to a website domain.

While it is not easy, tackling deliberate online falsehoods is important for our future as a nation, for our future as a democracy, for our future as "one united people".

Allow me, Sir, to move on to my second point: falsehoods can divide us but we need to stand united − united as one multiracial Singapore. We need to safeguard our social cohesion.

Unity is important, and unity can be threatened by false allegations. A Straits Times article on India’s fight against fake news reported that false images had been circulated on Twitter purporting to show Rohingyas persecuting Hindus in the Rakhine province, where the Muslim Rohingyas have been fleeing alleged persecution. In that instance, the purported victims were repainted as the oppressors, exploiting the tension in Myanmar towards the Rohingyas. These examples show how false allegations can target and wrongfully exacerbate society’s fault lines and threaten unity.

Falsehoods should not be perpetuated. There needs to be space to clarify misconceptions, address prejudices and reduce misinformation. Truth is the antidote to lies, and lies need to be addressed in order to dispel suspicions based on falsehoods.

This brings me to my third point. People who tell the truth do not need to and should not be afraid of the actions to be taken. I repeat: people who tell the truth do not need to and should not be afraid of the actions that will be taken.

There is a difference, of course, between falsehoods and truths that we do not like to hear. The Green Paper is entitled "Deliberate Online Falsehoods". It is not entitled "prohibiting hard truths".

It is important for a democracy to work that ideas be exchanged. However, concocting a collage out of unrelated data, then squeezing an untenable conclusion out of it and then attempting to pass off that conclusion as truth − now, that is dangerous and should be avoided. Why?

Because it misleads people. Simply put, there is no interest in being misinformed. This is especially so when important decisions have to be made.

Therefore, while we should not hamper constructive discussion and the expression of viewpoints, we need to make sure that decisions are based on the foundation of truth and not the shifting sands of falsehood. An example of how falsehoods may hamper democracy can be seen in the Brexit situation where there was a misleading poll with shaky extrapolation that caused people to think that millions of Turkish people would move to the UK if it voted to remain in the European Union. What would happen if such important decisions were made based on these false premises?

Another example is how, during the recent elections in the US and UK, supporters of a particular candidate or party had been encouraged to vote via invalid methods or on an invalid day. If voters acted on this, the electoral process by which democracy is effected would not function as it was meant to be.

Today, Sir, the motion is to refer the question of which principles should apply to the regulation of deliberate online falsehoods. Such a reference is needed. If falsehoods continue to influence the minds of people across sensitive issues, such as our multi-racial identity and our national security, then our unity will be at stake.

So, we need to act − and we need to act now.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of this Motion by the Ministry of Law to appoint a Select Committee to examine and report on deliberate online falsehoods.

As stated in the Green paper and reinforced by the Ministers today, online falsehoods, or '"fake news", as it is more commonly known, can have very serious and debilitating consequences for societies. We have seen how polarising the effects can be in countries like the United States (US) and France in recent years. We have also had our own share of fake news occurrences in Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on Saturday, 23 September last year, I received a WhatsApp message from a retired civil servant who had received it from a senior civil servant, and it contained a link to a breaking news story that alleged that the Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan had collapsed at a UN Summit in New York. Within minutes, the story went viral. I reached out quickly to a trusted contact in MCI who immediately assured me that the story was, indeed, fake. However, what astonished me was how quickly this piece of "fake news" spread and the alarm it caused. I can only imagine the distress caused to those who know the Minister.

This incident, and many others like it, tell us that online falsehoods or fake news is a phenomenon that is not going to go away. Indeed, it is going to be more prevalent as the world becomes digital and reliant on social media and online platforms for news.

So, how do we combat this phenomenon, knowing that it is something that we cannot control? I would like to suggest three possible approaches that perhaps could be further explored by the Committee.

Firstly, speed and magnitude of response. One of the areas that the Government and the community have to work on is creating multiple credible platforms to push out accurate information, corrections and rebuttals. The Singapore Government has 16 Ministries and 61 Statutory Boards − and I am not even including Government-linked companies here. Each Ministry and Statutory Board has its own website and social media channels. In confronting fake news that is viral and in danger of triggering a nationwide panic, there must be an immediate response across all channels to ensure that the accurate information drowns out the fake news.

Mainstream news media outlets can help lead this charge by enhancing their credibility. At a Digital Media Conference in November last year, The Straits Times Editor and Editor-in-Chief of the Singapore Press Holdings' English, Malay and Tamil Media Group, Mr Warren Fernandez, said, "Societies have to find a way to make sure that good content gets out there because if you don’t do anything about it, bad content will drive out good content".

I agree completely with this point, and feel strongly that newsrooms of today can do a lot more. One could make the argument that most Singaporeans get their news in real time from platforms like Facebook because even the mainstream news media today get their news and videos from Facebook. But I believe that this can change with more robust and credible news gathering and reporting.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in situations of critical importance, beyond Government platforms and mainstream news media, we should also consider immediately marshalling social media influencers here in Singapore to help us get the word out as fast as possible. While we all know that our very own Prime Minister Lee is one of the biggest social media influencers in Singapore because of the sheer number of followers across his social media channels, there are others who also have a wider reach. For us to combat fake news with immediacy and magnitude, it is critical that we engage as many credible influencers as possible.

The other approach which the Committee could focus on is education. I was pleased to read this week that tertiary institutions in Singapore are taking up the fight against fake news. Three polytechnics and universities in Singapore have recently introduced and modified courses to include emphasis on fake news. Students will be taught to do credibility checks on sources, cross-referencing and the use of authoritative sources.

While that is a great start, I feel that the education has to start at a much earlier stage − at preschool. If you go to any restaurant or hawker centre in Singapore today, toddlers watching content on iPads and mobile phones are the norm. Most kids learn to use iPads and mobile phones even before they learn how to speak. Sadly, when my son was growing up, these devices were not available. In this digital age, parents and teachers need to teach kids about the difference between what is "fake" and what is "true". It is akin to teaching our children not to talk to strangers. To be able to tell the difference between what is fake and what is true has to be ingrained in kids from young. This is not something that can be solved by legislation. This needs a whole-of-Singapore approach – everyone from parents to grandparents to teachers need to get involved.

Lastly, there is a need for the small group of influencers out there who take pride in offering alternative views and commentary on political and social happenings in Singapore to be more factual, accurate and constructive. Their opinions may not necessarily be fake, but their views and opinions can be very damaging to our social and cultural fabric. To me, opinion pieces that can undermine sensitive issues or negotiations can be even more damaging than fake news from foreign sources. These influencers are Singaporeans, many of whom are very familiar with the out-of-bounds (OB) markers as they may be experts or former media professionals. Many of these influencers may contribute commentaries to foreign online publications that are written to deliberately elicit a strong reaction. The community should be wary of these influencers, and learn to seek other credible sources of information before making a judgement.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in closing, I would like to commend the Ministry of Law for this initiative to convene a Select Committee. Fake news is a very serious phenomenon, and, if left unchecked, will have disastrous consequences for our social fabric.

Mr Deputy Speaker, "Democracy Dies in Darkness". This is an insightful slogan of Washington Post, a well-regarded US newspaper. The Washington Post recognises that a democracy cannot survive and thrive without an informed public discourse informed by facts, truth and transparency.

Indeed, in the past few years, leading democracies have been hacked. The long list includes the US, UK, France, Germany, Sweden and Italy. These nations have been hacked by foreign powers and special interest groups, who systematically inject fake news into the openness and the connectedness of many democracies, so as to further their foreign agenda or narrow interests and, in certain instances, they have succeeded.

Why do such concerted efforts frequently succeed, even in mature democracies with well-informed electorates? We are beginning to benefit from new research on fake news. Dartmouth College recently analysed the real and fake news consumption of thousands of adults in the lead up to the 2016 US election.

The research shows that most lies and false rumours online go nowhere. However, the key researcher, Dr Brendan, notes that social media companies have algorithms that "dangerously effective at identifying memes that are well-adapted to surviving, and these also tend to be rumours and conspiracy theories that are hardest to correct". In short, few pieces of fake news survive, but those that do, go viral.

We should not be surprised by the ingenuity of these algorithms, because social media companies have an overriding financial interest to keep us entertained and connected for as many hours a day as possible, by delivering one dopamine dose, one newsfeed at a time.

Fake news also thrives because of our psychological make-up. Psychologists have noted that for the human mind to critically examine whether an article is true or false, a person must first mentally articulate them, temporarily accepting the news as possibly true. But even if our brain subsequently rule what we read as fake, our mind has already made a subconscious note of that, and this lingers in our minds longer than we think it does.

Psychologists also believe that repetition matters. Merely seeing a newsfeed headlines many times, even if they are later debunked as fake news, make it more credible than it should. In short, even if we recognise news as fake, fake news can influence us subtly.

People might speculate as to the reasons for the Select Committee. In fact, it has been suggested that one of the reasons for convening this Select Committee is the petition process which was initiated by some activists in relation to Parliament’s consideration and adoption of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill in August 2016. But such speculation does not change the issue at hand.

In view of the danger that certain state and non-state actors pose, by weaponising disinformation into fake news, I support the creation of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods.

Beyond the formation of the Selection Committee, I have two other suggestions.

One, while the Committee’s work is critical, we should tackle the issue upstream by strengthening our people’s understanding of how our society works.

Any country with an under-informed electorate has fertile grounds for fake news to thrive. Therefore, we must find more effective ways to keep our people well-informed about the fundamentals of how our society works.

This includes how our society manages our multi-cultural and multi-religious fault-lines; how the Government spends its money, and how we manage our reserves; how our political and electoral process functions; how we encourage transparency in public debate among Singaporeans, but also saying no to foreign influence on our public opinion.

A good way to start is to teach them in schools. Today, we already teach critical thinking in schools, and we do have social studies and national education. But more can and must be done. So, I agree with Mr Kok Heng Leun's view on strengthening media literacy.

Two, we should commission detailed and prolonged studies to understand how Singaporeans gather their views, and how social media shape their views.

When I meet young citizens, I sometimes ask them how do they build their world-view and what is their source of news. More and more, I am hearing that they are increasingly relying on news from social media or WhatsApp-sharing.

A clear understanding on the news consumption patterns will be necessary to help us calibrate policies, so that we can create a healthy balance between healthy discourse and necessary intervention.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me now conclude. Public discourse is the means for our society to reflect collectively, reflect on what values matter, reflect on whether our policies have lived up to our ideals, and reflect on whether we have pushed a logical idea to its illogical extreme.

For the longest time, our mainstream media has served as an accurate mirror for our society to reflect upon. With the rise of social media and the decline of mainstream media, many Singaporeans are no longer even looking at the same mirror.

At the same time, vested or financial interests distort their social media newsfeeds more and more each day. In the decades ahead, we have a lot of major decisions to make. And we need to collectively decide on our way forward on the basis of facts, and not rumours and, certainly, not fake news. We must do everything in our power to combat fake news to ensure that Singapore’s public deliberations continue to be enlightened because democracy dies in darkness. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in full support of the Motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion for the formation of the Select Committee to study deliberate spread and impact of online falsehoods. With the rise in technology and digitisation, the online space has been widening and is certainly one area of concern for every right-minded people and organisations, including the Labour Movement, given the multinational, multi-racial, multi-religious composition of the people and members that we have.

Sir, as I support the appointment of the Select Committee, I would like to put forth the following recommendations.

I support the appointment of a Select Committee to study the issue of deliberate online falsehoods, that is, fake news, and make appropriate and well-balanced recommendations as to how, as a nation, we should respond and how to cultivate the values of accountability and responsibility, especially when posting materials on social media. It is imperative for the Committee to study this issue in depth and solicit responses from the public and various interest groups as a ground-up inclusive move, as compared to introducing legislation alone without consultation. There is a fine line between satires, deliberate online falsehood or differing yet genuine opinions that may not resonate with the State's views. I propose that the Select Committee comprise different parties in the community and professionals from the digital media sector with relevant knowledge and experience.

Accountability on online platforms. Online platforms could create tools to help stem the spread of falsehoods. Technical steps could be taken to remove or limit access to propaganda outlets using the conditions of use of most Internet service providers and "report/block content" buttons. The recent online survey scam that NTUC FairPrice was rewarding customers with a $400 gift card voucher in celebration of its 45th anniversary is a clear example to demonstrate the spread of falsehoods online. I suggest that an online platform be created for public to complain about factual inaccuracies and to check the validity of the news.

Currently, the Ministry of Health (MOH) has an online platform to feedback on specific concerns or complaints with the healthcare service providers or the Ministry. There could be an additional category to include feedback on online falsehoods relating to public health safety issues for MOH to investigate and clarify with members of the public. This is one such example I could give and other Ministries could also have a similar kind of arrangement. This would mobilise the public energies to police lies and distortions with a web-based open system listing journalists, publications, news channels and other websites.

On public engagement. Given the diverse demographic of our Republic, it is important to embrace diverse viewpoints. Singapore Conversations was a good way to engage Singaporeans openly on policies and the rationale behind them. The Government could continue to sharpen their strategic communication efforts and media activities to be able to rebut false stories and to be believed, and it has to be responsive and timed.

Education and mind set change. This is a very important topic that many Members have also spoken about. Ultimately, the focus could be on educating our citizens on media and digital information literacy. I would like to applaud the efforts of tertiary institutions, such as Singapore Polytechnic, Ngee Ann Polytechnic, the Nanyang Technological University (NTU), the Singapore Management University (SMU) that have introduced lessons to help students differentiate fact from fiction, where students are taught to do credibility checks on sources, cross-referencing and use of authoritative sources. Secondary schools could also include media and digital information literacy in their curriculum, where students learn to pick on cues to uncover misinformation, question misleading sources and resist the temptation of believing just simply. Eventually, we hope to cultivate a generation with a healthy scepticism on the online information.

Lastly, on legislation. We should monitor the situation and consider various effective means of curbing and preventing deliberate on-line falsehood. Legislation and tighter controls must also be considered to combat the “virus” of falsehood. As for foreign influence, we need to have some gate-keeping mechanism to know the source of the news, who is the sponsor, what is the intent of the action, as what the Minister for Law has mentioned earlier. We should learn from the experiences of other countries and study what actions have been taken to overcome those challenges.

France, Germany and the US are also similarly working to overcome the problem of fake news. The proposed law in France requires websites to make public the identities of those who sponsor content. It also provides for emergency procedures introduced during elections, providing judges the ultimate power to remove content, close websites that publish false information or fake news. Similarly, in Germany, legislation allows for fake news or illegal content in social network to be removed within 24 hours.

In concluding, my belief is that the Select Committee appointment is a step in the right direction and I support this move.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.55 pm until 4.15 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.15 pm.

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

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the speakers before me who have given their views on Deliberate Online Falsehoods.

One way to think about today's debate is whether we should adopt a paternalistic or a liberal stance towards false information per se – whether online or off. I think our discussion today should take bearing from the existing principles that already inform this House's views on falsehoods and truths – namely, the relatively uncontroversial principles that we should, first, reduce falsehoods as much as we can and, second, promote the truth as vigorously as we can.

But as with so much in policy making, this is easier said than done. Deliberate Online Falsehoods cut across these two broad spectrums: (a) completely false information, photos or videos purposefully created and spread to confuse or misinform; (b) information, photos or videos manipulated to deceive, or old photographs shared as new.

More than half of British users of social media surveyed have admitted that they fail to check the original source of online material before sharing or "liking" it. What about Singaporeans?

A June 2017 survey by the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) found that around 25% of respondents shared information that they later discovered to be false. Around two-thirds could not recognise falsehoods when they first saw it and only half were confident of their ability to recognise falsehoods. Most of us admit that we cannot distinguish the truth from falsehoods.

Mr Deputy Speaker, today I want to make a simple argument – that we now need more processes to safeguard the two principles that have underwritten our governance philosophy all these years and which I have spoken about earlier: reducing falsehoods and promoting truth. New processes are needed because the status quo is based on two assumptions which we now know to be questionable.

First, the assumption of infinite, or even adequate, time and capacity to process information. There might be one camp choosing to oppose this motion who may think "here we go again – mollycoddling us by restricting information for our sakes". Freedom of information has a nice ring to it, and restricting freedom always requires justification.

"Don't treat us like little children", they say, unable to distinguish between truths and falsehoods. And, indeed, the argument from freedom goes further – even if we do make mistakes, it is our mistake to make.

So, the Government should not – and should not want to – protect us from our mistakes. Surely, it is a fundamental tenet of our democratic system that people should be allowed to make their own decisions, and if those decisions are mistaken, it is a matter of accepting the outcome of a democratic process. That is true.

But it is also true that people have a right to expect that the political leaders that they have put in place carry a duty – to ensure that their decision making environment – that is, the people's decision-making environment – is not populated by intentional falsehoods. That their leaders not be blind to the dangers that such falsehoods can have on freedom of opinions, religions, races and genders. Also, it should be noted that we are restricting fraudulent information and not restricting information per se.

In fact, I see countering falsehoods as a way to safeguard freedom of speech – by ensuring the conditions are in place for there to be meaningful and free debate. Falsehoods mislead, crowd out truths and prevent constructive debate and discourse.

Just throwing all the "data" we have into a pot and then leaving people to distinguish between good and bad information makes the assumption that people have both the time and the capacity to do this. I do not mean "capacity" in the strict sense of expertise or education – I mean it in the loose sense of "inclination" – or whether we "can be bothered." Indeed, most people cannot be bothered.

Declaring my interest as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of NTUC FairPrice, FairPrice, too, has had its fair share of Online Falsehoods. So, according to information online, FairPrice, for example, sells "halal pork" and also "plastic rice".

In 2007, FairPrice filed a police report after we found a picture of "halal pork", allegedly sold by stores, on the Internet. If the first person who saw this checked with us and deleted it, it would have died there. Instead, the news was carried in both the mainstream media as well as online news media, and caused a stir in the community, and rightly so. It was so widespread that Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) had to carry out physical checks. That was in 2007. It went viral again in 2011 and again in 2014, and FairPrice had to respond publicly that this was a 2007 hoax that had resurfaced. Even today, 10 years later, I still get messages asking me about this. So, for the last time, I hope, this is a deliberate online falsehood! Indeed, a lie can travel half way around the world before the truth gets out of bed.

Just last year, FairPrice also had to file a police report over viral claims that its house brand jasmine fragrant rice is made of plastic. Last year, too, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) had to step in and come out to debunk a Facebook video that alleged a coffee shop in Ang Mo Kio was selling "man-made eggs from China".

False information will be the Pope's theme for his annual World Communications Day in 2018. I think, if the Pope deems falsehoods harmful enough to cause "polarisation" of public opinion, all the more should Singapore urgently formulate recommendations to curb the peddling of misinformation, the chaos and the additional costs it brings.

We know of instances of brands' reputations tarnished by appearing on fake news websites and, unwittingly, funding their activities. Back in March last year, Havas Group UK, a media agency, decided to stop all its ad spending on Google and YouTube after ads for its clients appeared next to "questionable or unsafe content" online.

Consequences go beyond dollars and cents into the very destiny of men. In the UK, voters for remain or exit voted on the basis of information later found to be false. Countries are hoping to sway online citizens to be one way or the other, vote one way or the other, pressure their governments one way or the other, using – not evidence or facts, but by casting fear, seeding doubt, and pressing emotional buttons.

There are many of us who do not have the knowledge nor the time to sieve through falsehoods; this is exacerbated by the mode of delivery of such news. How easy it is to like, comment or share information these days. We owe a duty of care to the public, by presenting them with straight facts, we owe it to each other to be vigilant of misinformation. We need to be vigilant and alert to decipher masses of information thrown at them. We know this in the same way we know it is bad to eat too much sugar, that exercise is good and sloth bad. We know and yet we do not do what we should; instead, quite often, we do what we should not.

So, we need the vigilance of laws, regulations and due process. Being vigilant does not mean being undemocratic. We need to educate the community, let them know if the news comes from a certified source, and equip them to decide whether to read or share it. At the same time, we owe it to them, to ourselves to ensure that the environment under which such decision making takes place is as uncluttered with falsehoods as possible.

Having regulations and due process also reduces our hiding behind the excuse of "honest mistakes". We make claims, and then, when proven false, we apologise and say, "we are all human". We did not intend to mislead, to misrepresent, our memories are faulty, and blah, blah, blah. Intentions aside, we all know that the consequences matter. Having a review of how we regard such falsehoods will raise the bar for due care in public discourse, and also, hopefully, reduce the instances of being reckless with the truth. We are all imperfect beings – and, hence, need to show that we have taken due care when we engage in public debates.

If Singapore had four seasons, I would say winter is coming. Those who follow Game of Thrones, "winter is coming". Given that the assumption of infinite time and capacity is false, our first principle must be to reduce falsehoods as much as we can, to be vigilant and guard against the purveyors of such harmful things. In short:

False assumption 1 – people have infinite time and capacity to make decisions. So, Principle 1 is – reduce falsehoods as much as we can.

But there is a deeper objection, Mr Deputy Speaker, about regulation of information. It argues that a Government does not have a right to decide beforehand what is true and what is false. That people have a right to all the facts, and if one set of fact is proved wrong, only then will they decide to change their decisions.

This is the argument from the "marketplace of ideas" – that people will change their minds when the facts change. As Cicero, the great Roman orator said, "Does not, as fire dropped upon water is immediately extinguished and cooled, so, does not, I say, a false accusation, when brought in contact with a most pure and holy life, instantly fall and become extinguished?" Cicero, I think, did not have experience with "halal pork"!

The answer to his question, whether falsehoods wither and die when exposed to the light of truth is, of course, no! Lies thrive and contest against the truth, even when the "truth" is as evident as where a man was born, or the amount of money spent on healthcare. In the post-truth world, the role of facts, unfortunately, has been shown to have less force then supposed.

Instead of changing their minds when presented with a different set of facts, people may instead choose to disregard these facts or find ways to find new facts which support their pre-existing ideas. This confirmation bias is well-tested and should be taken into consideration when we make the marketplace argument. In short:

False assumption 2 – people change their minds when presented with new facts, which leads me to Principle 2 – We have a duty to ensure, to the extent possible, that the marketplace of public discourse is not crowded out by falsehoods.

To do this, we need to actively invest in any efforts to discern, filter, contain, disrupt or even punish deliberate Online Falsehoods. Perhaps, the solutions may be both legislative and relying on market forces. Stronger fact-checking/ self-regulation by social media sites and technology companies. Popular search engines and social media platforms, such as Google and Facebook, have been struggling for years to fight false news, despite their best intentions.

For instance, in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting last October, despite Facebook and Google promising to inhibit such circulation, falsehoods, such as the identity and the affiliation of the shooter, still ran rampant.

There is much room for improvement, especially when one reason is that the algorithm in these systems often bring attention to posts that get their readers' interests – exactly what falsehood is designed to do. If the post garnered 10,000 likes and shares, then, surely, it must be real, right? Wrong! And this is where numbers provide false safety. There is very little wisdom in crowds, or, at least, very little that we ought to take at face value when it comes to important decisions.

Israel, for example, has proposed legislation requiring social networks to take reasonable measures to monitor their platforms for incitement to terrorism and to remove such incitement, or be liable to pay fines.

Stronger fact-checking, self-regulation by society, by individuals. It is understandable that many people do not have the time, resources or energy to recognise and safeguard against falsehoods, before believing or sharing with others. Yet, self-policing in this manner is very much dependent on the ability of individuals to spot such news, to begin with.

Another challenge is the need for individuals to recognise that they need to be socially responsible: Think before sharing. This is a moral argument. The limitations to public education now are in its outreach and time. It will be difficult to reach certain segments of the community, such as the elderly. Also, public education of this nature takes a long time before results bear fruit, and we do need some immediate solutions, given the gravity of the situation now.

Intervention through legislation. In the UK, the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee is conducting an inquiry into "fake news". Facebook and Twitter may face sanctions if they fail to hand over information to the Committee to assist in a Parliamentary investigation into Russian interference in the EU referendum.

Some examples of what legislation can do include making falsehood publication a criminal offence, mandating the removal of such news from platforms and websites, and/or ensuring that readers have access to facts. This achieves the crucial objective of deterrence, which non-regulatory measures mentioned above cannot achieve.

The extent of Government involvement requires deep discussion. Heavy-handed legislation may backfire on the Government acting as judge, jury and executioner of what constitutes credible information. We may end up freezing free speech online. Legislation, if overly relied on, may also weaken the ability of society to educate themselves and discern what is real or not for themselves.

It is clear that the challenges brought by deliberate online falsehoods are many and complex.

You will notice, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have merely challenged two assumptions and reinforced two principles in the wake of these false assumptions. I have stressed the role of process in ensuring that the environment for our public discourse remains clean and unencumbered.

As to the actual processes themselves – what they should be, how much is needed – I think these are the issues that the Select Committee is best placed to explore, as it allows the committee to draw representations from contributors and stakeholders of all sectors.

Having a Select Committee will allow for a thorough discussion of the problems posed by this issue, such as responsibilities of social media and tech companies’ platforms, how to educate the public to discern news, the duty that websites have towards using deliberate falsehoods to attract more hits and to drive revenue.

In particular, I think such a committee would also be able to articulate more clearly and in greater detail the principles that underline our governance model in terms of regulating information.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I had earlier spoken about the need to balance our freedoms with duties but perhaps I ought to make it clearer than that. It is not just a balance, but a difference between means and ends. We do not pursue freedom for its own end. We do not, if I may put it bluntly, have a “philosophy of freedoms”.

As Mr S Rajaratnam, our then Minister for Foreign Affairs, said in a speech to foreign correspondents, “We see freedom of the press not as the end, but as means to an all-embracing end – the integrity and independence of our country – its security, its prosperity, the eradication of anything that would sow seeds of social, racial and religious conflicts which is the rule rather than the exception in the world today.”

Sir, he was speaking in 1986. Yes, more than 30 years ago – and the world has come full circle. So, I think we ought to hear his words to the end. He said, “Singapore has far more vulnerabilities than most national states because it has none of the essential prerequisites for a viable, stable and prosperous state. It has nevertheless functioned fairly adequately for 27 years only on the basis of two intangibles – ideas and the human characters shaped by these ideas.”

Ideas as shaped by human character, not ideas as tossed willy nilly into a pot, undiscerned, half-formed, half-baked.

Let us all recognise the need to work out for ourselves in Singapore what is the correct approach towards preventing and combating deliberate online falsehoods.

A Select Committee with the broad terms of reference as proposed in this Motion is the best way of working these out. Sir, I support the Motion.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak on this important Motion, and I applaud the effort to push this Motion in this House. While there are many aspects of this discussion, I would like to focus on two important considerations.

Firstly, I need to underscore that constructive public debate or the exercise of freedom of speech must be founded on truth, not falsehoods. Those who advocate strongly for freedom of speech are quick to argue that the "market" should be left to "correct" misinformation and disinformation. They point out that a marketplace of ideas and thoughts will certainly eventually lead to the truth emerging.

This, while true in the past, may not necessarily be the case in this digital era, where falsehoods are propagated at such speeds and volumes which makes it difficult for the common man to discern between fact and fiction. In this digital era, algorithms and social media platforms can also be manipulated by motivated parties – local and foreign, private and state-payers.

Measures need to be taken to ensure that while free speech is exercised, facts will prevail. Free speech must be founded on facts, and not on falsehoods, especially those that are designed to undermine society.

We should not take this lightly. The dangers of how freedom of speech can be abused to cause significant harm to society, can be seen from the experiences in the UK and Australia. In the UK, online falsehoods were used to distort sentiment in relation to government policies and to breed xenophobia.

In 2016, online falsehoods were spread about immigration in the lead-up to the "Brexit" referendum, which fuelled support for "Brexit" by claiming that the UK will see an influx of 12 million Turks if it remained in the EU. False information was also used to stir up racial tensions in the UK to smear Muslims as a group, and to turn non-Muslims against Muslims.

In the face of numerous occurrences of online falsehoods in the UK, the UK government has launched a parliamentary inquiry into fake news. Their experiences have shown them that if left unchecked, the spread of falsehoods has a serious detrimental impact on society. In Australia, online falsehoods were used to stir up racial tensions to smear Muslims as a group and to stir up xenophobic feelings.

In 2015, companies that get products halal certified were targets of a campaign that claimed that halal certification funds terrorism. Conducted largely through the social media and online networks, Australian anti-Islamic groups demanded companies that carry halal certification labels to drop them. This was part of what were known as rallies to "reclaim Australia". There was never any evidence to support the allegation that money from halal certification funded terrorist groups.

Just like the UK, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has undertaken a formal inquiry into major digital platforms and their impact on media, journalism and advertising, with the impact of falsehoods as part of this inquiry. The Australian process is somewhat similar to Singapore’s proposed Select Committee process, in that it is formally convened to study a problem and has powers to obtain evidence and hold hearings.

The second consideration is that falsehoods have the ability to radicalise individuals with extremist sentiments. Terrorist groups have long recognised the need to use online media effectively, in order to radicalise masses and achieve their sinister aims. In an undated letter to Taliban leader Mullah Omar, quoted in 2014, Al-Qaeda’s then leader Osama bin Laden himself observed that "90 percent of the preparation for war is effective use of the media".

Al-Qaeda was long advocating ghazwa ma’lumatiyya, or information operations, and harb electroniyya which is electronic warfare.

Bin Laden’s successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri, shared this same view. He referred to "jihad of the bayan" which is the message of declaration, and considered this more important than "jihad of the spear" – he praised the "knights of the media jihad", and the "clandestine mujahideen" who were conducting it. Terrorist organisations use Twitter to put out fake news stories. There have been many instances of mainstream media mistaking terrorist-originated tweets as legitimate sources of breaking news.

An example of a terrorist organisation that has been using online falsehoods to push its own agenda is the Islamic State (ISIS). In 2017, it claimed that Mosul’s famed al-Nuri mosque was blown up by a US-led coalition airstrike, when in fact, ISIS had destroyed the mosque themselves, using explosives. Their goal as jihadists was to blame the West and the Americans. The Iraq military and the US military released counter-footage, trying to show the truth of the matter, but objective truth has little meaning as the followers of ISIS cannot be swayed by evidence. So, even if you put the counter-truth, it is hard to sway the public and hard to counter the perceptions the mistruths have already shaped.

So, we need to be aware of the consequences when our online space is hijacked or influenced by players with certain motivations or agenda. In our multi-religious and multi-ethnic Singapore, which has enjoyed decades of stability and harmony, such falsehoods should have no place as someone with the intention to stir up emotions and they can do it easily, using religion.

What measures do we need the Government to look into? And these are some suggestions, I hope, the Select Committee can consider. Some countries, such as Germany, have laws to take down unlawful content and systemic breaches that can result in fines of €50 million. The EU, UK and France are considering similar take-down laws. New Zealand takes a different approach under the Harmful Digital Communications Act that allows the Court to order a right to reply or to correct false statements concerning individuals.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the process of appointing the Select Committee, given the sensitivities of the topic and the pervasive use of the online platform by many Singaporeans. Given our small size and highly connected population, we are at risk of foreign influence and intervention.

The Select Committee is therefore a good platform to get views from many Singaporeans and other stakeholders to hear their views, challenges and for us to learn the best way to take this forward for the greater good of Singapore and fellow citizens.

However, the Government must also assure Singaporeans that this is not an effort to silence critics and that the citizens must not lose that freedom to critic, feedback and put points of views across, as long as they are based on truths and not deliberately pushing falsehoods. One of the key priorities, I feel, of the Select Committee is to gain consensus among Singaporeans on how we define online falsehoods, and perhaps it may be time to refine and update our OB markers for the future.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion. Please allow me to continue my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: The move to initiate a Parliamentary process in order to study and obtain feedback on the issue of falsehoods that are deliberately spread online is timely.

This is because we have long faced the issue of having all kinds of news and information coming from multiple sources, including from overseas. What is worrying is that some of these news or information do not state the full picture, or is done out of context. Its proliferation is certainly something dangerous.

Another issue pertains to information or news that is spread with a specific agenda. For instance, during this new year, an ISIS video was spread that showed militants supposedly from Singapore urging ISIS militants from around the world to step up efforts to harm their enemies.

MUIS and leaders of Malay bodies in Singapore immediately condemned the act of spreading of the video.

I believe that this will not be the last time that such videos and information will be spread. It will take a continuous effort to prevent the spread of online falsehoods, in addition to efforts to educate and warn our community about the dangers of spreading such news and information.

For instance, terrorist groups have always recognised the need to harness online media effectively in order to propagate their radical beliefs, in addition to recruiting new members to achieve their agenda.

Let me give some examples. In an undated letter to Taliban leader Mullah Omar that was reported in 2014, the Al-Qaeda leader at that time, Osama bin Laden himself observed that “90% of preparations for war involve the use of media”.

Al-Qaeda have long encouraged what they call ghazwa ma’lumatiyya (or information operations), and harb electroniyya (or electronic warfare).

Terrorist groups also use Twitter to spread online falsehoods. In fact, several mainsetream media outlets use information from Twitter as a legitimate source of news that is used in news updates.

One example pertains to a terrorist organisation that uses online media to spread false information in order to promote their agenda. A year ago, ISIS claimed that the Al-Nuri In Singapore’s context, as a small multicultural, was destroyed in an airstrike by an allied force led by the US. However, it was ISIS themselves who destroyed the mosque.

Therefore, we must always be wary of the consequence and impact when our online platforms are exploited or influenced by certain groups with their own agenda or motives.

In Singapore’s context, as a small multicultural, multi-racial and multi-religious nation, we cannot afford to fall victim to such influences or threats, no matter how small. This is especially so in matters related to religion and race, which are sensitive.

Some of the sensitive issues being spread, that can heighten emotions and divide our society, are beyond our control because it comes from external sources. Certain groups will take the opportunity to spread Islamophobia, and this will surely have an impact in terms of our Muslim community’s relationship with non-Muslims and how they view our Muslim community.

Our experience in Singapore, from time to time, is that we are worried whether certain information that is spread and proliferate in social media is incomplete or inaccurate. Some of these news and information can cause anger or discontent.

For example, there was an allegation that halal pork was sold at NTUC FairPrice supermarkets. A lot of time and resources were needed to correct such information and give assurance to the public,

With technological advancement, information, especially videos and photos, can be created or modified to spread rumours and inaccurate information, and this can spread quickly.

Hence, what are the measures that we would like the Government to study? Some countries like Germany have introduced legislation to close down platforms that display content that break the law, and such offences can carry fines up to €50 million.

The EU, UK and France are considering similar legislation. New Zealand is taking an approach under its laws that allows its Courts to order a right of reply to correct any false information about an individual.

Clearly, the management of online falsehoods is a serious issue. We should focus on how Singapore can contain it. At the same time, it is hoped that any regulations or laws will not hinder the immense benefits of online platforms and social media technologies that have contributed a lot in terms of spreading information and communications.

In order to achieve solutions that can benefit everyone, and to protect us from online falsehood, we must support the Select Committee process and recognise the Government’s efforts to take a consultative approach to resolve this sensitive issue.

In this regard, I hope that the Malay/Muslim community can also contribute and play a role, whether they are community and religious leaders, online entrepreneurs or the man-in-the-street, and that all of us will give suggestions and ideas about ways to counter online falsehoods.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In 1969, there were rumours of Malays attacking Chinese in Malaysia. This led to serious race riots which also affected Singapore. The riots in Singapore lasted for seven whole days resulting in four people dead and 80 injured. People of my age or older would have remembered the terror and horror in those few days.

At that time, my family was living in a rubber plantation in the countryside in Malacca. The houses in the plantation were far away from each other. In the day time, we worked in the plantation; in the evening, the whole family would stay together with our neighbour whose house was far away, for safety reasons.

At that time, my third brother was just born. I remember my mother told me that if Malays came this evening, we must all quickly escape into the jungle in the back; but we would have to leave our little brother behind. I was then only eight years old, attending Primary 2. I understood what my mother meant and felt helpless. All I could do was to pray silently that the moment we had to leave our new born brother behind would never come. For me, those days of fear and anxiety are unforgettable.

The 1969 race riots are a case in point to show how rumours and fake news can cause grave damages. Today, the power of fake news can be even greater. I would like to remind Singaporeans that today's fake news is hard to discern and root out. They spread fast and will affect innocent people. Hence, every Singaporean must stay vigilant and work together to control the spread of fake news.

First, let us talk about the challenges in discerning truth from falsehood. Technology can make fake news look more and more credible, almost identical as real news. Have you seen online short videos? As long as there is just one person in the video, this person's image can be matched with different expressions and voices to make it look like the person has actually said those words. In the old days, we used to say “seeing is believing”. Now, however, you cannot even believe what you have seen with your own eyes.

In addition to falsehoods in the form of news, there are also computer programmes which can pretend to be a real person and spread rumours online, misleading people to think that many people hold the same view.

Needless to say that fake news spread fast. Fake news is not only limited to English media. I often receive fake news in Chinese sent from my residents. They asked me whether they should believe news, such as Mao Shan Wang durians containing pesticides, plastic rice and fake seaweed.

I noticed that there are many websites and Facebook pages in China, Taiwan and Malaysia that spread fake news. There are even websites based in Australia targeting at Chinese readers in Singapore. They publish fake news to stir up trouble for Singapore-China and Singapore-US relationships.

I believe that the same phenomenon happens to the Malay and Tamil media as well. Fake news, therefore, can appear in various forms and different languages to influence Singaporeans.

Some people say that a party involved can rebut. However, it shows that the rebuttal tends to be not as “hot” and the transmitting speed is much slower, hence there will still be many people who would believe the fake news. Many fake news spread through WhatsApp. The Government cannot know them all and rebut. Fake news, therefore, can easily become widespread.

Because there can be substantial gains behind spreading fake news, it is very difficult to root them out. There are two kinds of gains. The first is financial gains. For example, the couple who created The Real Singapore website made more than $500,000 from advertising and bought a house in Australia; $500,000. How long will that take for most Singaporeans to make? They made this money without any effort and conscience, simply by fabricating stories overseas, slandering innocent Singaporeans and dividing our society. Although the website has been closed down, there are still other similar websites. I hope the Government can find ways to sanction them.

Another motive is for political influence. Countries can now easily feed fake news to another country. The US has found out that fake news from Russia and East Europe had been read by 150 million people and this could have influenced the US Presidential Election. Now, 150 million is 30 times of our own population. If other countries intend to use fake news to influence our five million people and destroy our racial harmony and stability, it should not be too difficult.

How influential can fake news be? Fake news can affect the livelihood of a common person, such as a durian seller, simply because of the fake news that durians have pesticides. Recently, a coffee shop was wrongly accused for selling fake eggs. I believed the owner must have felt helpless and worried.

Fake news can also slow down the transmission of important information and endanger people's safety. For example, when Zika was spreading in the US, because some people believed that Zika did not come from mosquitoes but from vaccines or pesticides, they refused to let inspectors check whether there were mosquitoes breeding in their home. This led to the spread of the virus and many innocent infants and their families being affected.

There was a lot of fake news circulating in Singapore as well at that time but, luckily, people still believed reliable media and we were able to transmit the right information and control the spread of Zika collectively.

This time, we had passed the test. However, if we allow fake news to spread and undermine people's trust in reliable media, I am afraid we may not be so lucky the next time.

It is not hard to imagine that, for example, a country X would like Singapore to adopt pro-X policies. Like in 1969, they can spread fake news of racial discrimination and marginalisation. Fake news now can spread to the entire island within hours, stirring up suspicion among races. The Government rebuts but country X is prepared beforehand and a new wave of fake news will surface, accusing the Government of racial discrimination. Country X will use social media and a large number of messages left by fake accounts to drown the rebuttal from the Government. In the end, race riots will occur and our economy will slump into recession. After that, country X will look for a puppet to set up a political party, proclaiming to protect the interest of a certain race. The party thereafter manages to acquire political power and adopts pro-X policies. X becomes the ultimate beneficiary but the victims are Singaporeans in general. Those Singaporeans who have forwarded fake news have inadvertently become X’s accomplices.

This is perhaps the worst scenario.

Even superpowers like the US suspect the presence of foreign influence. Small nations like Singapore must also stay vigilant. Not doing so is akin to gambling with Singaporeans' life and livelihood.

Hence, I support the establishment of the Select Committee to study carefully how to tackle fake news. I hope the Committee can pay attention to the following two issues.

First, will this Act undermine online freedom of speech? Second, will this Act be used against the opposition parties and people who criticise the Government?

Deputy Speaker, I support the establishment of the Select Committee to gather feedback from various sectors, to be debated later in Parliament.

Only through an effective Fake News Act can we collectively combat the threats brought by fake news. We should maintain openness and circulation of information while sanctioning and controlling deliberate falsehoods.

At the same time, I hope Singaporeans, including Members of this House, should think twice before forwarding any messages. Exercise due diligence so that the messages will not end up harming innocent citizens. [Applause.]

Minister for Law.

The Question is the Motion as moved by the Minister for Law. As many as are of the opinion say "Aye".

Hon Members say "Aye".

To the contrary say "No". I think the "Ayes" have it —

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is an important Motion on an important issue. I think it is good to have on record the position of Members. I ask for a Division, Sir.

Will hon Members who support the Division, please stand at your places? As there are more than five Members who support the Division, a Division will be called. Clerk of Parliament, ring the division bells.

After two minutes –

Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.

*Question put on the Motion as moved by the Minister for Law. *

Mr Shanmugam, you have asked for a Division, would you like to proceed with the division?

Yes, Sir.

May I remind Members that they are to be seated in their designated seats and should only start to vote when the voting buttons on their arm rests start to blink. You may start voting now.

Division taken: Ayes, 80; Noes, Nil; Abstention, Nil

Members are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screen. Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim his vote has not been displayed or displayed incorrectly on the screen?

As there are none, I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 80 "Ayes, zero "Noes", and zero "Abstentions". The "Ayes" have it, the "Ayes" have it.

Resolved,

“(1) That Parliament appoints a Select Committee to examine and report on:

(a) the phenomenon of using digital technology to deliberately spread falsehoods online;

(b) the motivations and reasons for the spreading of such falsehoods, and the types of individuals and entities, both local and foreign, which engage in such activity;

(c) the consequences that the spread of online falsehoods can have on Singapore society, including to our institutions and democratic processes; and

(d) how Singapore can prevent and combat online falsehoods, including:

(i) the principles that should guide Singapore's response; and

(ii) any specific measures, including legislation, that should be taken.

(2) That the Select Committee shall comprise –

(a) Deputy Speaker Charles Chong as Chairman; and

(b) seven Members from the Government benches, one Member from the Opposition benches, and one Nominated Member, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.’”