The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act was passed in Parliament on Wednesday. (Photo: Getty Images) SINGAPORE — The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) was passed in Parliament on Wednesday (8 May), bringing to a close a process which began with the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods holding public hearings early last year. The new law comes as governments around the world grapple with the spread of fake news, and its potential impact to sow social discord or even political upheavals such as affecting the outcome of elections. The Singapore government has said that the new law will help society guard against malicious actors who knowingly spread harmful falsehoods and act against public interest. It has stressed that the law targets falsehoods, not opinions and criticisms, nor satire or parody. The law defines that a statement is false if it is false or misleading, whether wholly or in part, and whether on its own or in the context in which it appears. Perpetrators face fines of between $30,000 and up to $1 million, and/or up to 10 years’ jail. Minister for Law and Home Affairs K Shanmugam said on Wednesday that the government must have the powers to deal with online falsehoods swiftly, and repeatedly assured Members of Parliament (MPs) that the court is the final arbiter on the matter. A total of 72 parliamentarians voted for the Bill while all nine Workers’ Party (WP) MPs and NCMPs voted against the Bill and three NMPs - Anthea Ong, Irene Quay and Associate Professor Walter Theseira - abstained. WP chief Pritam Singh had asked the Speaker for the parliamentarians’ votes to be formally recorded. Concerns over decision-making The law had triggered widespread concerns inside and outside the House including on the definition of what constitutes a falsehood, the powers to be given to individual ministers to deal with falsehood, and the potentially adverse impact it would have on free speech. During the second reading of the Bill on Tuesday and Wednesday, the House was divided along partisan lines with WP MPs speaking up against it and PAP MPs expressing support for it. Story continues One criticism by the opposition MPs was that the initial decision-making process on online falsehoods shouldn’t reside with the government, but should instead be vested with the courts. Pritam also suggested that the courts could issue expedited orders against online falsehoods, similar to interim orders granted under the Protection from Harassment Act. His fellow Aljunied GRC MP, Low Thia Khiang, said the law is a ploy by the government to cement its “absolute power”. Ong, Quay and Prof Theseira highlighted their concerns about the new law granting the government far-reaching powers to curb online communication. They proposed an independent council to review the Government's actions in tackling online falsehoods. Shanmugam said such a council might add to unnecessary bureaucratic bloat, and all functions of a such a council to tackle falsehoods can be achieved under the current structure of the Executive in Parliament. Corrections as primary response When a minister determines an individual behind a falsehood and issues an order, the latter has to comply first. The individual can choose to apply to the minister to cancel the order. If the minister decides not to accede, the individual can appeal to the court. A minister can order an individual to issue a correction alongside content deemed false, or to take down the content. The law will also give ministers the power to direct online sites such as Facebook, Google and Twitter to put warnings next to posts that are deemed false. The law ministry had said last month that corrections would be the primary response to a harmful online falsehood that is actively spreading. “Corrections will usually require the facts to be put up alongside the falsehood, so that the facts can travel together with the falsehood. Online platforms may also be required to ensure that those who previously saw the falsehood also see the correction,” it said. Concerns over a chilling effect Education Minister Ong Ye Kung earlier on Wednesday addressed concerns among some academics that the fake news law could be used to stifle political discourse, saying that research should not be conflated with activism. Ong said, “Any activist will not be caught by POFMA if you express an opinion or hurl criticisms at the government. The law treats all activists equally – whether you are an academic or a man or woman on the street…You are as free as an ordinary citizen to comment on current affairs and critique the government.” Conversely, he added, any activist – academic or not – who spread online falsehoods that harm society will have to face the law. Minister for Communications and Information S Iswaran explained to Parliament why the law vested authority in portfolio ministers. “The minister, supported by his ministry’s officials and resources, would have the requisite domain expertise to make an assessment and act quickly to stem the potential harm arising from an online falsehood,” he said. Aggrieved parties can appeal against the minister’s decision in court, and accountability is ensured as the minister is also answerable in Parliament. “Therefore, in assigning the powers under the Bill to portfolio ministers, the Bill correctly locates authority with accountability, supported by the requisite knowledge and expertise to make swift decisions,” added Iswaran. Related stories: Government must have powers to deal with falsehoods initially and swiftly, not courts: Shanmugam Leon Perera and Walter Theseira fear fake news law could be abused by future government Fake news law: Academic research should not be conflated with activism, says Ong Ye Kung IMDA to set up POFMA office to administer fake news law: S Iswaran Fake news law is ploy by government to hold on to ‘absolute power’: Workers' Party MP Low Thia Khiang No need for independent body to assess falsehoods, Parliament is accountable: Shanmugam Parliament: Appeal against minister's decision under fake news law could be heard in court in 6 days 83% of Singaporeans prefer independent body to assess online falsehoods: survey COMMENT: 'Fake news Bill' gets a re-run COMMENT: Singapore’s online falsehoods bill will deepen culture of self-censorship Virtually anything can be deemed ‘misleading’ under fake news law: historian Thum Ping Tjin<doc-sep>The Singaporean parliament voted to give the government special powers to combat fake news on Wednesday, despite complaints from activists and journalists. Under the new law, ministers would be able to give orders to platforms like Facebook and Twitter to put up warnings next to disputed posts. In extreme cases, the networks could be ordered to take the content down. The law also allows for fines of up to SG$1 million ($734,000; €656,000) for companies that fail to comply. Individual offenders could face up to 10 years in prison. Reporters' associations and activist groups slammed the bill as an attempt at censorship. Read more: Top 10 'most urgent' attacks on press freedom for May 2019 The law "gives the Singapore authorities unchecked powers to clamp down on online views of which it disapproves," said Nicholas Bequelin, Amnesty International's regional director for East and Southeast Asia. "It criminalizes free speech and allows the government almost unfettered power to censor dissent," he added. "It doesn't even provide any real definition of what is true or false or, even more worrying, 'misleading.'" 'We are talking about bots' The rich island country of 5.6 million people is known for maintaining a tight grip on the media. Reporters Without Borders rates it 151st of 180 countries in its press freedom ranking, which is three spots below Venezuela and two above Belarus. Addressing the parliament on Tuesday, Singaporean Minister of Law and Home Affairs K. Shanmugam said free speech would not be affected. "We are talking about bots... trolls... fake accounts and so on," he said. The government has long insisted that posting "corrections" next to alleged fake news would be the preferred response, not fines and jail terms. "Tech companies will say many things to try and advocate their position," Shanmugam said. "We have to show them we are fair, but also firm." The term "fake news" first claimed international spotlight in mid-2016, following the Brexit vote in the UK and ahead of the US election, which saw Donald Trump take the office of president. Several countries have since passed laws to combat the phenomenon. dj/jm (AFP, Reuters) Every evening, DW sends out a selection of the day's news and features. Sign up here<doc-sep>
Singapore has passed a controversial bill that could equip the government with extensive powers to police online media and free speech. The bill was first drafted last month and, as had been expected, it passed 72-9 in Singapore’s parliament, dominated by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), late on Wednesday. As we reported last month, the bill caused concern through its potential to stifle free speech, as a key feature enables the government, and in fact any minister, to force “corrections” to be added to online content that is deemed to be “false.” Beyond media, the flex also extends to social media. According to the law, those found to be “malicious actors” face a fine of up to SG$50,000 ($37,000) or five years in prison for their content. If posted using “an inauthentic online account or a bot,” the fine jumps to a maximum of SG$100,000 ($74,000) or a potential 10-year jail term. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter face fines of up to SG$1 million ($740,000) for their role in such situations. Designed to cover “a false statement of fact… has been or is being communicated in Singapore” or cases where politicians believe that issuing a correction is “in the public interest,” the bill also claims reach overseas — or, rather, intended reach overseas. Politicians can trigger it in situations judged to be “in the interest of friendly relations of Singapore with other countries.” It remains to be seen how much success the Singapore government will have with its efforts. Domestic media may well be under control — the World Press Freedom Index ranks Singapore 151 out of 183 countries and self-censorship is common — but influencing newsrooms based overseas and social networks will likely prove difficult. Facebook, for example, last November resisted calls to remove content flagged as defamatory by the government. That clearly frustrated officials. “This shows why we need legislation to protect us from deliberate online falsehoods,” the Ministry of Law wrote in an announcement at the time. How a takedown would work — and how the government might access encrypted chats on apps like WhatsApp and Telegram, which are also part of its focus — also remains unclear at this point. The law has been criticized by free speech groups. “Singapore’s new ‘fake news’ law is a disaster for online expression by ordinary Singaporeans, and a hammer blow against the independence of many online news portals they rely on to get real news about their country beyond the ruling People’s Action Party political filter,” Human Rights Watch deputy Asia director Phil Robertson wrote on Twitter. “Singapore’s leaders have crafted a law that will have a chilling effect on internet freedom throughout Southeast Asia, and likely start a new set of information wars as they try to impose their narrow version of “truth” on the wider world,” he added. Human Rights Watch — which came out with strong criticism of the bill last month — was criticized by the Singapore government last month, which hit back at “its long-standing practice of issuing biased and one-sided statements about Singapore.” Meanwhile, on the more assistive end of the dissenting voices, the Asia Internet Coalition — a group that represents Facebook, Google, Twitter, LinkedIn, Line and others — penned an editorial in Singapore’s Straits Times newspaper suggesting changes to the bill. The opinion piece — which, irony alert, is restricted by a paywall — recommended specific processes, an imperial body to vet decisions, exemptions for opinion articles, satire and more, as well as a request for “clear and well-defined language and scope.” Robertson is concerned that other counties in Southeast Asia will take the ball Singapore has punted and run with it, thereby creating other restrictive online content policies. That’s already happened to some extent. In Vietnam, a draconian cybersecurity law went into operation on January 1 while Thailand passed a controversial law in February granting a wide scope of powers to authorities.