Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Fake news laws: Proposed appeal process 'the most cost-effective way', says law ministry

SINGAPORE — The process by which individuals can appeal against government directions against falsehoods, under proposed new laws against fake news, is “the most cost-effective way”, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) said on Saturday (April 6).

The process by which individuals can appeal against government directions against falsehoods, under proposed new laws against fake news, is “the most cost-effective way”, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) said, adding that details of this process, including the timeline involved, will be outlined “in due course”.

The process by which individuals can appeal against government directions against falsehoods, under proposed new laws against fake news, is “the most cost-effective way”, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) said, adding that details of this process, including the timeline involved, will be outlined “in due course”.

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp

SINGAPORE — The process by which individuals can appeal against government directions against falsehoods, under proposed new laws against fake news, is “the most cost-effective way”, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) said on Saturday (April 6).

The process, including the timeline involved, will be outlined “in due course”, it added.

The ministry was responding to queries from TODAY about the steps that someone would have to take to appeal against a correction or takedown direction from a minister.

The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill tabled in Parliament on Monday (April 1) gives government ministers broad powers that include directing online news sites and platforms to publish corrections alongside the falsehoods made and, in extreme cases, issue a takedown order.

Individuals accused of making false statements have the right to appeal against such directions.

However, an appeal can only be made after the individual or organisation has gone to the minister to cancel the order but the minister refused to do so.

Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam has said that the Government makes the first decision in deciding if a statement is a falsehood so as to prevent such falsehoods from spreading quickly. But he stressed that the courts ultimately have the final say.

Some observers have raised concerns that legal costs could deter individuals from appealing against a minister’s order.

But MinLaw said in its response to TODAY that the process proposed is cheaper than if the courts were involved from the start.

“What the Government has proposed is the most cost-effective way. Supposing instead of a directive, the Government has to make an application in court – then whether or not the person wishes, he has to go to court, and incur the expenses,” MinLaw added.

“That will be more costly, because everyone will have to be brought to court, even when the person knows it is false and does not wish to challenge.”

It will certainly also not be effective, because by the time the matter goes to court, the falsehoods would have gone viral and set in stone, MinLaw said.

Under the draft laws, the Government issues a directive, with the individual having the choice to either challenge or not, the ministry noted.

“When they know it is false, they are unlikely to challenge. Only when (they believe) what they had stated is true will they challenge. And if they are right, the Government will have to pay costs to them,” it said.

“This approach balances the need for speed and cost effectiveness.”

Addressing the issue of legal costs being prohibitive, Senior Minister of State for Law Edwin Tong recently said that financial help and support are available to assist individuals.

The proposed laws do not set a high bar for individuals to prove that what he or she wrote is true, Mr Tong said, adding: “(So we are) not talking about going to court on a complicated two-week trial or a complicated hearing that would require a lot of time and expense to go and deal with."

READ ALSO

Give judges more leeway under fake news laws

How international news media covered Singapore's proposed laws against fake news

WHAT THE APPEAL PROCESS COULD LOOK LIKE

Some lawyers who spoke to TODAY said that the appeal process could come under the existing Order 55 of the Rules of Court.

This Order states that an appeal must be done through an originating summons and made within 28 days after the “date of the judgement, order, determination or other decision against which the appeal is brought”.

Under the same Order, the appeal “shall not be heard sooner than 21 days after service of the originating summons by which the appeal is brought”.

Managing director of legal firm DC Law LLC Doris Chia explained that an originating summons does not involve a trial, just a hearing, which could take from half a day to an entire day.

Filing one, she added, could cost between S$5,000 and S$20,000 depending on the nature of the case.

An originating summons is accompanied by an affidavit – setting out the facts why an individual is making an appeal. These documents must be served to the other party, for instance the minister who had issued a direction on an individual to take down a falsehood. That other party will then file an affidavit in response.

The appellant can then file another affidavit to address issues raised by the other party, with the court then fixing the matter for hearing.

“From start to finish, it can be between two and four months,” said Ms Chia.

Lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam, who runs his eponymous law firm, agreed that the appeal process under the proposed laws against falsehoods could come under Order 55.

However, he said a “procedure more specifically tailored to the circumstances where there are challenges to takedown orders should be enacted, to ensure that statement-makers get a fair trial”.

Likewise, Associate Professor Eugene Tan from Singapore Management University’s (SMU) School of Law said that the new laws might have their own specific appeal process, which might be provided by a subsidiary legislation that has yet to be drafted and enacted.

Assistant Professor Benjamin Joshua Ong said that even though there is a provision governing the appeal process, “it is always open to the Rules Committee – which makes Rules of Court – to lay down a new rule” that is specific to the proposed laws.

He said that this new rule will set out its own timelines, adding: “This is standard practice. For example, there are Rules of Court setting out procedures and timelines that apply specifically to the Personal Data Protection Act and the Protection from Harassment Act.”

As for the issue of legal costs being a potential deterrent to those who may need to file an appeal, Mr Thuraisingam pointed out that there could be lawyers taking up cases pro bono, with courts also having the discretion to waive filing and hearing fees and to refrain from making adverse cost orders.

He also noted that if the procedures and costs involved in appealing against a minister’s directions are too prohibitive, it would only add fuel to the fire of criticism that the proposed laws would give ministers too much power.

He added: “But… where the case has merit and where the justice of the case warrants it, cost, while inconvenient, is unlikely to be a major obstacle.”

Related topics

fake news Ministry of Law

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.