Education Minister explains why fake news laws don't apply to erroneous 2003 study on job creation

SINGAPORE — In 2003, two economists released a study that said three out of four new jobs created went to foreigners, with only one going to Singaporean residents.

This earned a sharp rebuke from then-Acting Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen, who said that the two academics — Dr Chen Kang and Dr Tan Khee Giap who were then with the Nanyang Technological University — were “way off the mark”.

He clarified that nine out of every 10 jobs created went to Singaporean residents and only one went to a foreigner. It was “irresponsible” and “unprofessional” for the academics to put out these figures, he said then.  

However, both academics responded that their figures were taken from the Manpower Ministry’s website.

This episode 16 years ago was brought up by Workers’ Party (WP) chairman Sylvia Lim during the debate on the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill (Pofma) in Parliament on Wednesday (May 8), before the Bill was passed by the House on Wednesday night.

She asked if the same incident had occurred after Pofma was enacted, would the professors be required to tag corrections to their reports online.

"How would their professional standing thereby be diminished, in the eyes of their colleagues, students and the world at large?" said Ms Lim, whose party opposes the Bill.

"Worse of all, would they and other economists choose to steer clear of researching or writing about Singapore, to avoid such backlashes? If so, Singapore would be the poorer for it."

Speaking later on Wednesday evening, Education Minister Ong Ye Kung said that if the proposed laws were to be applied to this incident, the two academics would not be considered to have propagated falsehoods.

Mr Ong was addressing concerns from academics that the proposed laws might affect their academic work.

In his speech, Mr Ong outlined the criteria, or “gates”, that needs to be satisfied before any statement published online can be corrected or removed under the powers of the new laws.

The statement must be false and cause public harm.

Read also

• All you need to know about the debate on S’pore’s proposed fake news laws

Using these criteria to assess the 2003 incident, Mr Ong said: “First gate, was there falsehood? It wasn’t falsehood, they used real data. It was incomplete but they did not fabricate data.”

“Second, was there public harm? I don’t think there were any riots. Or were there any very heightened tensions. It will fail at both gates.”

Mr Ong added that these academics are now at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and have gotten Singaporean citizenship.

When asked for further clarification by Ms Lim on how the laws might not apply to this incident, Mr Ong said that the conclusion by the academics was based on data that was “incomplete”, not fabricated or falsified.

“So long as researchers abide by research discipline, I do not see how they can be caught by Pofma unless they fabricate the data,” he added.

Mr Daniel Goh, WP’s Non-constituency Member of Parliament (MP), said that the rebuke from Dr Ng then amounted to a correction.

In response, Mr Ong said that the Manpower Minister disagreeing with them was “not equal” to their report running afoul of laws under Pofma.

However, he reiterated that if a government ministry did not agree with an academic, it can be expected to present its data and arguments to correct public perception and convince them.

“It cannot be that just because it’s a research piece, we all have to shut up,” he said.

While accepting the Government’s need to rebut research they do not agree with, Nominated MP Walter Theseira said that the Government tends to use language in their rebuttals that imply falsehood.

He explained that disputes between the Government and academics sometimes involve the conclusion derived from facts, not on the facts themselves.

Associate Professor Theseira then asked Mr Ong if his fellow Cabinet ministers and their ministries could “tighten up” the language used when rebutting academics. This was so that the public would not be made to think that the academics’ published works were falsehoods.

Mr Ong said he took the NMP's point and one value of the debate on the Bill is that "we are now a lot more careful" on what's the difference between falsehoods and disagreements.

"And I think this law crystalise it and we should be more disciplined in the future."