Workers’ Party opposes draft laws on fake news

SINGAPORE — In Parliament on Tuesday (May 7), the Workers’ Party (WP) opposed the proposed laws to tackle fake news and online falsehoods, with its leaders arguing that the courts, not the Government, should be the "first decision-maker" on what is true or false.

Accusing the Government of having a “hidden agenda”, Mr Low Thia Khiang, former chief of the opposition party, said that the proposed laws under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulations Bill are made to clamp down on “ordinary citizens”, who do not have much resources to take their cases to court.

In rebuttal, political office-holders and MPs from the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) said that the courts are not able to respond quickly enough to a possible crisis brought about by the spread of fake news.

They also said that the law is not targeted at individuals but at people who are deliberately spreading false and malicious news in a large-scale manner.

To Mr Low’s other criticisms that the wide definitions of “falsehood” and “public interest” leave room for government ministers to decide what is real or false, Ms Sun Xueling, Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Home Affairs, said that there is no strict definition on what constitutes public interest in the Bill because the Government cannot imagine every possible scenario that will hurt public interest.

The proposed law was the subject of intense debate, with WP chief Pritam Singh being the first MP to speak about the Bill. This was after office holders from the Ministry of Law — Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam and Mr Edwin Tong, Senior Minister of State for Law and Health — finished their speeches.

He and Mr Low argued that government ministers — which make up the executive arm of the Government — should not be the first to decide what sort of online content would constitute as falsehoods.

Giving ministers the power to decide whether a statement is false or not and is against public interest, as well as to order a correction or a takedown of such content, is one of the central legislation being proposed.  

While the Government has said previously that it will not be the "final decider" of what is true or false under the new law, Mr Singh said that there have been instances in Singapore’s history where decisions made by the executive arm of the Government were questioned by members of the public and even by some Cabinet members — for example, the arrest of alleged Marxist conspirators in 1998 during Operation Spectrum.

While the courts ultimately decide if a correction or takedown order is being challenged, Mr Singh said that the “judicial culture in Singapore is highly non-interventionist”.

“It is open to question whether a traditionally non-interventionist judiciary will challenge what the Executive deems to be reasonable under the Bill, particularly in the face of broad definitions like ‘misleading statements’ and ‘public interest’,” he added.

There are similarities to the amendments made to the Protection from Harassment Act (Poha) that were passed on Tuesday, Mr Singh said, where Singaporeans are expected to apply to the courts to ask for publication to be stopped or for correction orders against online content.

He said that if Singaporeans and companies are expected to apply to the courts to deal with online statements made against them, “it would be sensible for the Executive to surrender itself to such a process as well, particularly since the meaning of a falsehood is identical under both Poha and the Bill”.

If swift action is needed to stop the spread of malicious fake news, Mr Singh suggested there could be scope to introduce processes for duty judges to deal with an urgent application or at a very short notice.

To this point, Mr Tong said that while the courts technically can try to do so, it “will be very difficult” as they will have to assess the merits of the case.

It will not be possible for the courts to come to a decision in a matter of hours, Mr Tong said.

Disagreeing with Mr Singh’s proposal of having the courts be the “first decision-maker”, Mr Christopher De Souza, MP for Holland-Bukit Timah Group Representation Constituency (GRC), said that measures to tackle fake news require speed and “a nimble response” to break its virality in a matter of hours, given how falsehoods can “spread like wild fire”.

“Falsehoods can threaten public safety and create riots… There is no luxury of time to make decisions, (to go) through the court process,” Mr De Souza said.

Some public emergencies sparked by fake news could also happen after the courts close, he noted.

‘UNDERLYING MOTIVE TO DETER CRITICS’

In his speech against the Bill, Mr Low said that the proposed legislation seems to be directed at individuals’ speech on social media.

Firstly, ordinary citizens do not have the same amount of resources the Government have should they wish to appeal against any correction or takedown orders.

A legal tussle against the Government would amount to “hitting the stone with an egg”, he said.

With social media, citizens have now become empowered to express their opinions online — some of which are critical of the Government.

“The underlying motive (of introducing such a Bill) is to deter critics on social media… The Government can selectively punish a few offenders as an example to others, thereby achieving a chilling effect… And people would protect themselves by self-censorship.

“The real aim of the Government through this Bill is to protect the ruling party and achieve political monopoly,” Mr Low said.

“To introduce such a Bill is not what a government which claims to defend democracy and public interest should do. It is more like the unscrupulous actions of a dictatorial government that will resort to any means to hold onto absolute power,” he added.

Even though the Government has been trying to assure the public that the Bill targets only fake news and not individuals’ opinions since it was first tabled on April 1, Mr Low said that he “does not have the confidence in the Government” to stick to its word.

Mr Low also raised concerns on whether ministers from the ruling PAP would manipulate and spread falsehoods through online platforms to win elections.

Instead of calling for laws to fight fakes news, Mr Low suggested that civic education be enhanced, so that citizens cultivate a habit of finding out facts when reading news articles.  

“The Internet is an open platform. Netizens can rebut irrational, extreme and unfair online remarks. Relevant government agencies and ministers can also clarify and state their stance. By doing so, the true nature of online rumours, fake news and misleading remarks will be known, netizens can also be educated and their ability to judge enhanced”, he added.

Ms Sun said that the Bill is not against “ordinary citizens” as Mr Low claimed, but against people who are deliberately spreading false and malicious news in a large-scale manner.

She sees fake news as a “new kind of virus” and likened the Bill as a “treatment” to overcome the virus.

She added that current legislations, such as the Broadcasting Act, are not adequate as they were enacted at a time when there was no social media or large-scale Internet platform.

Ms Sun repeated points mentioned by other ministers before — that this Bill does not constrain freedom of speech. It serves to shine a spotlight on what is the truth, as it allows for real statements to be placed side by side with falsehoods.

Ms Sun also said that she was disappointed to hear Mr Low express his doubts that senior government officials who would have to take on the duties of the ministers during an election would remain impartial during the period.

AN INDEPENDENT COUNCIL

Apart from WP MPs, a Nominated MP also voiced her concerns.

Repeating the proposal that she and two other Nominated MPs made earlier, Ms Irene Quay called for an independent council to be set up to serve as a check and balance, and to evaluate the effects of fake news.

Among other things, Ms Quay proposed legislating a Freedom of Information Act where citizens can request data from the Government instead of having to do their own fact-checking and analysis.

On giving ministers the power to decide what is real or false, Ms Quay asked how the Government is able to ensure a consistent approach across different ministries

Sharing the same concern as Mr Low, she also asked who will have the power to order a government ministry to take down a piece of fake news originating from it.

“This is the characteristic dilemma of ‘who watches the watchers’. In a democratic society, the rule of law should apply to everyone,” Ms Quay added.

Mr De Souza questioned whether the independent council Ms Quay wanted will be taking over decision-making duties that is performed by the executive arm of the Government.

Ms Quay then clarified that the council serves only to review past cases for the purposes of learning and fine-tuning future Bills.