Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill

Resumption of Debate on Question [7 May 2019], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." – [Minister for Law].

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications from yesterday evening that anyone would like to pose? Okay. Ms Rahayu Mahzam.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Last year, I had the privilege to sit on the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods together with several other Members of this House, including Mr Pritam Singh and Ms Chia Yong Yong. It was a rigorous process. The Committee was appointed in January 2018 and subsequently called for members of the public to submit their thoughts on the causes and consequences of deliberate online falsehoods and suggest counter-measures against the threat. We received 170 submissions from people from all walks of life, including academics, community leaders, think tanks, students and other individuals. We went through all the submissions and invited 79 of those who made submissions to elaborate on their submission at a public hearing. Over the course of eight days, we heard oral representations from 65 individuals and representatives of organisations. The Committee deliberated on the matter over a period of almost six months and eventually produced a 176-page report, not inclusive of the annexes, with 22 recommendations.

One of the key thrust of the recommendations was to disrupt online falsehoods through new legislation which would empower the Government to take the necessary action. The Committee had observed that falsehoods can appear in a broad spectrum of circumstances, from deliberately fabricated content to satire and parodies. They can also have varying degrees of impact, causing minor confusion to threatening national security and dividing societies. The Committee emphasised that Government intervention should be calibrated in a manner that takes these factors into consideration.

I am heartened that the Bill today has taken into account one of the Select Committee's recommendations on the creation of new legislation. In my view, the Bill has captured the essence of the Committee's recommendation and has done well in calibrating the responses to deliberate online falsehoods. I note that some may not share my view. In the wake of the First Reading of the Bill, I received feedback, heard and read about concerns of some people of the impact the new legislation may have to our ideals of freedom of speech and how some felt that this Bill may have been rushed through without proper consultation.

I disagree with these views but appreciate that my perspective was very much shaped by my experience and what I had learnt whilst I was on the Select Committee. It would be impossible to set out my whole experience in this speech but I would like to touch on several learning points that left a deep impact on me.

Firstly, Singapore is highly vulnerable to online falsehoods. Falsehoods has a great potential to deepen fault lines and polarise society. Singapore is one of the most diverse countries in the world. We are small, multi-racial, multi-religious, with great digital connectedness. Racial and religious tensions may be inflamed quickly. A Nielsen survey indicated that more Singaporeans access their news over the Internet and social media, compared to hardcopy newspapers. A Business Times report stated that 70% of Singaporeans are active social media users on mobile devices, double the global average of 34%. The same report found that over three-quarters of Singaporeans used social media.

In addition, several security experts who presented at the Select Committee pointed out that foreign disinformation can be expected to occur in Singapore. In fact, in private hearings, the Committee received evidence that State-sponsored disinformation operations have been carried out against Singapore. Targeting friction points in Singapore society, and weakening Singapore’s will to defend itself, is a more attractive strategy than conventional military warfare. Further, the tools for disinformation campaigns are readily available in our region.

Secondly, there are real risks of "slow drip" falsehoods causing long-term damage to society and are difficult to displace if not dealt with quickly. Several experts gave evidence on this issue, including Dr Ben Nimmo of the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab and Dr Elmie Nekmat, Asst Prof of Communications and New Media from National University of Singapore. Falsehoods may play on existing "slow burn" issues, such as simmering communal tensions, to create more serious crises in the long run. In particular, Dr Mathew Mathews from the Institute of Policy Studies, warned of “low-level” misinformation about particular ethnic, religious or immigrant groups on various matters such as their loyalty to Singapore, potential to commit anti-social acts and others. And these could lead to friction within the community. Singapore society has seen such falsehoods. One notorious example is an article by The Real Singapore, which falsely reported that a complaint by a Filipino family resulted in commotion between Hindu participants and the Police during a Thaipusam procession in 2015.

Viral, drip-feed falsehoods may play on slow-burn issues. Such lies may not trigger immediate violence, but they can poison debate, and irreversibly damage the fabric of our society – like race relations, confidence in public institutions. All these can culminate in violence in the long run. They should not be considered "less dangerous", and Singapore cannot afford to be complacent about them. The breakdown of society due to a spread of what may seem like innocuous falsehoods, can and will happen if we do not take action to correct and curb them.

Thirdly, falsehoods are very, very difficult to combat. Therefore, there is a need to act swiftly and decisively in certain situations. The evidence before the Select Committee pointed to three difficulties: (a) human cognitive tendencies, (b) weakness of truth compared with falsehoods, and (c) the further and faster reach of falsehoods than the truth. Basically, in short, we believe what we want to believe, the truth is not as salacious as falsehood, so it is harder to believe the truth and falsehoods can go viral much faster that the correction.

A significant number of representors, both experts and laypersons, called for measures to swiftly stem the spread of online falsehoods. They were of the view that such measures are vital because of the speed at which online falsehoods can cause irreparable damage. Some of them explained why longer-term or indirect measures such as fact-checking and public education were not enough to deal with online falsehoods. The Select Committee agreed.

In light of the things that I have learnt, I am therefore pleased with the calibrated approach taken in the Bill. The Government needs to be empowered to quickly react to falsehoods if there is an adverse impact to the public. In certain circumstances, there cannot be any delay and the truth has to be brought to light immediately. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

( In Malay ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore is highly vulnerable to the threat of online falsehoods that can potentially destroy inter-racial and inter-religious relations. The adverse impact of falsehoods which have become widespread is hard to repair. Therefore, under certain circumstances, the Government has to be given the power to curb the spread of such falsehoods.

Many have voiced their concerns about how this legislation can affect people's freedom of speech. Let us take a step back and think about what we want for our society. We want a society that knows how to think and is able to conduct healthy discussions. This can only take place when there is a space that is free from slander and falsehoods because otherwise any debate will not be beneficial.

Some also questioned the power granted to the Government in this Bill which is seen as too broad. This is actually untrue. The Government must ensure that the information is false and affects public interest. Any view and opinion that are based on true facts will not be categorised as falsehoods. The Government can issue a direction for a correction alongside the falsehood or, in more extreme situations, for the falsehood to be taken down. However, if a person disagrees with the direction, he can go to Court to obtain a determination. The Government does not have the final say in determining whether the matter is true or false. In my opinion, there is a calibration in this Bill's approach and I think this is a good approach.

( In English ): I am happy to note that corrections will be the primary response and there is no punishment for the majority of cases if there is no malicious conduct. I am satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards in the form of a recourse to the Court, in the event there is an objection to the allegation of falsehood. On this note though, I appreciate the lay persons’ concerns about the cost and complexities involved in seeking recourse from the High Court. I have intended to seek clarification on this but I note that in his opening speech the Minister for Law had explained the simplified processes. I believe this should address the peoples' concerns.

At the end of the day, it is clear from the various explanations, that the Ministry has given through news articles and videos, that the Bill does not affect ordinary Singaporeans. Only those who act deliberately will face criminal consequences. Such persons must not only know that the statement they are sending is wrong; they must also know that such statement will undermine public interest. So, it is not a criminal offence to forward or share messages without checking for accuracy first – although I think you should. I feel that ordinary Singaporeans should be happy to be warned about falsehoods and to receive corrections. This will help to build a community of more discerning Internet users. It may be useful to continue to guide and educate the public about this new legislation. Perhaps the Minister can consider efforts to educate Singaporeans on what type of falsehoods will be covered under the Bill so that they can better identify and avoid spreading these falsehoods.

On this note, I would highlight that the Select Committee has recommended a multi-pronged approach to help deal with the issues of deliberate online falsehoods. It is very important to educate the public to help equip them with skills to tell false from fact and to build healthy online habits. Over the longer term, I believe that the new legislation, along with the suite of non-legislative measures put in place by the Government, will have the effect of cultivating an informed, discerning population. Mr Speaker, I support this Bill.

12.14 pm

Prof Lim Sun Sun (Nominated Member): Hon Members of the House, if "fake news" was the word of the year for 2017, POFMA could go down in Singapore’s history as the word of the year for 2019. Indeed, this acronym for the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, nifty by accident or design, has entered into our colourful Singlish lexicon. People have since been heard saying such things as "you better watch out, they POFMA you then you know!" or "wait you kena POFMA!". Indeed, so versatile is POFMA that it can serve as both a verb and a noun.

Jokes aside, the sheer liveliness with which this new Bill has been discussed – both online and off – has brought to light several issues. Singaporeans acknowledge the scourge of online falsehoods and recognise the need to do something about it. But Singaporeans also care deeply about our online space, and our freedom to discuss and debate within it.

Hence, there have been several aspects of the Bill that have stoked the greatest debate. These have been given considerable airing over both online and mainstream media, and addressed by the Minister yesterday. I would like to focus on the need for a collaborative framework within the Bill which, as currently drafted, is lacking.

Mr Speaker, the problem of online falsehoods is both multi-faceted and unwieldy, necessitating a more creative and collaborative solution. Indeed, borrowing from the experience of our Labour Movement with its tripartite model comprising the Government, employers and workers, we can foster an innovative tripartite model for tackling online falsehoods. One that comprises the Government, media and technology companies as well as media literate consumers.

As currently proposed, POFMA requires Internet intermediary companies to reactively respond to the directives of the state rather than proactively develop other strategies to douse the spread of falsehoods. This may not be the best use of their resources.

Instead, we should consider a more cooperative relationship that can facilitate mutual cooperation, education and engagement, where the state can be apprised of the latest technological trends and solutions, and technology companies can be schooled and reminded in the societal values that they must uphold.

Since being tabled, POFMA has drawn criticism for vesting individual Ministers with the power to determine falsehoods and take action. Such views reflect the visceral resistance that people have to granting exclusive authority to a small number of individuals in our pluralistic media landscape.

Furthermore, the proposed key measures of targeted and general corrections are based on evidence that when consumers are presented with both the original falsehood and the correction, they can consider the information in its totality, and form their own conclusions. Although POFMA is meant to be platform-agnostic, the evidence we currently have on the effects of corrections is platform-, context- and even demographic group-specific. This raises several intriguing questions.

Will targeted and general corrections counter-productively amplify the original falsehood to a wider audience, without a guarantee of the original or new audience reading the accompanying correction? Will we perversely and inadvertently create a cognitive shortcut where people seeing an official correction presume that the original falsehood must be true precisely because it is being vehemently debunked? Will falsehoods that do not come with corrections be summarily assumed to be true? Such unintended outcomes of a correction strategy cannot be ruled out, despite our best efforts and intentions.

With the relentless proliferation of new communication platforms, many of which increasingly offer encryption to safeguard privacy, consumer habits, skills and even biases will evolve constantly. The execution of targeted or general corrections will differ from platform to platform, translating into varying degrees of consumer exposure to the corrections, and with varying levels of effectiveness.

I would thus like to propose that if the Minister must retain the authority to issue directions expeditiously, he or she should be advised by a panel of experts representing the technology industry and media consumers, somewhat like the Film Consultative Panel. In other words, the Minister should have at his disposal the wisdom of an advisory panel that can determine whether a particular course of action is realistic or practical, or whether it could be counter-productive. For instance, a correction or take-down order in some situations might be either inefficacious or serve to further entrench the falsehood in question. Further, the type of targeted action could differ depending on the type of media platform – what works for Facebook may not be as effective for Telegram or YouTube. The role of the technology companies in this panel is thus not to promote vested interests, but to identify industry best practices on what is most efficacious and practicable in the circumstances.

The workings of such a panel need not slow down the process – members can be pre-appointed and deployed at short notice to advise the Minister. There is no issue of accountability because the Minister retains the final authority to take action. But with this panel, the Minister can act with the benefit of a wider range of views extending beyond those of civil servants.

Going beyond POFMA for the longer term, in order to better align with the democratised nature of our media environment, we should further concretise this tripartite approach to tackling online falsehoods. We should establish what I call an Information Integrity Institute, or ICube for short, to supplement POFMA's correction regime. It should be funded by contributions from all media and technology companies. These can be pegged to a graduated scale commensurate with, for example, their annual returns from advertising.

ICube will play a critical fact-checking role and develop the expertise to do so swiftly and effectively. It can host an online repository of verifications of falsehoods. Over time, it should develop a reputation as a reliable third party fact checker that is the first port of call for consumers in need of authentication. It should also play a capacity building role to professionalise newsmakers in the production of quality information, and raise ethical standards within the media and technology industries. It can also set the research agenda by offering grants to investigate the effects of online falsehoods and potential solutions to the problem.

Consumers too can also be involved in helping to flag suspect news. With robust fact-checking accessible to all consumers, we can nurture greater individual discernment, and reduce our reliance on state-issued corrections. Due to its shared funding, ICube will be less liable to attract allegations of partisanship, and therefore more likely to engender trust in its determinations of truth and falsity, and the verifications and refutations which it issues.

Communication platforms are evolving rapidly and along with them the media usage patterns of consumers. In light of these shifting complexities, the possible unintended effects of legislative approaches to addressing falsehoods must be closely monitored and amended if necessary.

12.23 pm

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): In Malay, Sir.

( In Malay ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, the Government stated that the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill (POFMA) is a regulatory effort through legislation to deal with the problem of falsehoods that is becoming increasingly prevalent online, especially through social media. It is also stated that this piece of legislation is necessary to protect social cohesion.

Sir, the Workers’ Party agrees that there should be legislation to deal with the problem or phenomenon of online falsehoods even though the Workers’ Party has made the decision not to support and reject POFMA.

The Workers' Party disagrees with the basic principle of POFMA which provides powers to the Ministers, that is, the Executive, as the first arbiter in deciding whether a remark or statement can be considered as a falsehood or otherwise.

The Workers' Party suggests that the Judiciary and not the Executive become the first arbiter. We are of the view and we are confident that this suggestion is more appropriate in achieving the primary purpose of protecting and preserving social cohesion.

We disagree with the basic principles of POFMA because it contains elements that can lead to abuse of power and, if this happens, it will undermine social cohesion, something that runs counter to the primary objective of having a law to prevent and control online falsehoods.

We must acknowledge that in this context, social cohesion can also happen if the decisions and actions that are taken by the Minister contain elements of power abuse.

The concern over abuse of power has been mentioned by many groups – the public, politicians, journalists, civil society organisations, academics and so on ‒ ever since the First Reading of POFMA took place on 1 April 2019.

Sir, this concern is not without justification.

In my speech, I will first speak on two provisions contained in POFMA that have raised concerns about potential abuse of power on the part of the Government and, secondly, I will also touch on several arguments by the Government in its response to the negative aspects of POFMA.

Sir, the two provisions I referred to earlier can be found under clauses 2 and 4(f).

Clause 2 provides the definition that a false statement is a statement that is indeed false, or one that is not false but can be misleading. The word “misleading” in this definition raises concerns about the possibility of abuse of power taking place.

The Minister is a political member of the ruling party. Many have said that, if there are situations where criticisms are directed towards Government policies, or if there are negative opinions on the ruling party, can the Ministers make fair assessment and decision? This is because in this situation, the Ministers become a conflicted party. This can happen when, in order to defend Government policies as well as to defend the dignity of the ruling party, the word “misleading” under clause 2 can be exploited by the Ministers.

Sir, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew once said that the Government is the PAP and that the PAP is the Government, and I quote, "I make no apologies that the PAP is the Government and the Government is the PAP." His words can be interpreted as the Civil Service and statutory bodies are the PAP and vice versa. Based on this interpretation, it is not wrong if there are concerns about the possibility of abuse of power in order to defend the interest of a political party.

Sir, we have also seen the dilemma faced by Prime Minister Lee when he had to decide not to proceed with legal action against his siblings, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, on the Oxley Road issue which was discussed in Parliament. Mr Lee was in the position of a conflicted party. In this matter, allegations that impacted the integrity of the Prime Minister and the Government were brought forward. This was acknowledged by the Prime Minister himself, and I quote several statements from his speech.

The first quote.

(In English): " I am making this statement today because my siblings Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang have made serious allegation of abuse of power against me and my Government."

(In Malay): Second quote.

(In English): "These allegations are entirely baseless but they have already damaged Singapore's reputation. Unrebutted, they can affect Singaporeans' confidence in the Government."

(In Malay): Third quote.

(In English) "In normal circumstances, in fact, in any other imaginable circumstance than this, I would have sued immediately, because the accusation of the abuse of power is a very grave one, however baseless it may be. And it is, in fact, an attack not just on me, but on the integrity of the whole Government. But suing my own brother and sister in court would further besmirch our parents' names. At the end of the day, we are brothers and sister, and we are all our parents' children."

(In Malay): Prime Minister Lee's statements show that it is not easy to make decisions in a situation where he is a conflicted party. Many have questioned whether the decision taken by Prime Minister Lee regarding this matter is correct or not.

Sir, we cannot deny that POFMA will create a situation where the Ministers will be facing a dilemma just like what PM Lee faced.

Sir, I now turn to clause 4(f). This clause further reinforces the view on the possibility of abuse of power by the Ministers. This clause provides powers to the Ministers to take appropriate action if there are false or misleading statements intended to negatively impact public confidence in the Government. In such a situation, the Ministers, once again, become the conflicted party, if we take into account the interpretation of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s statement that the PAP is the Government and the Government is the PAP.

Sir, I would now like to touch on several arguments by the Government in response to public queries about POFMA.

First, when the Government was asked why Ministers were chosen instead of the Judiciary as first arbiter, the answer given was that the judicial process would take time and this is not acceptable because immediate action is needed to curb the spread of falsehoods and limit the potential damage on social cohesion.

Sir, this can be overcomed by having provisions so that the process to obtain a decision can be done as soon as possible. This point was already mentioned and elaborated on by my colleague Mr Pritam Singh.

The second argument is about the reply on the possibility of an irresponsible future government exploiting POFMA. Minister Shanmugam said that he could not give any assurances. I am of the view that the Minister's reply is problematic and baffling. Sir, the PAP Government has all along said that they are a government that is concerned about Singapore's future and the Government always formulates policies to be forward-looking and that assures a better future for Singapore. One example is the Government's policy of creating a second key for the national reserves where this function is given to the Elected President. The objective of having a second key is to prevent an irresponsible government from using the reserves as they please for political benefit.

It is rather surprising as to why there is a difference and inconsistency in the Government's approach and values when dealing with the possibility of abuse of power between the POFMA issue and the national reserves.

Sir, on a final note, through the arguments that I put forth, I believe the Members and the people can agree that the suggestion to make the Judiciary the sole arbiter is a better and appropriate action compared to the basic principles of POFMA which give the role of first arbiter to the Ministers. This is because if the Courts become the sole arbiter, there will be no concerns about abuse of power. As I have said earlier in my speech, if there is abuse of power, it will undermine social cohesion and this runs counter to the primary objective of having a law to deal with online falsehoods and manipulation.

12.32 pm

Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to address the amendments standing in my name indicated in the Order Paper Supplement with this Second Reading debate, please?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Ms Anthea Ong: Thank you. First, please let me thank Minister Shanmugam for his comprehensive reminder of the legislative intent for this Bill. I wish to state plainly that I support the legislative intent of the Bill because I agree that online falsehoods can distort and demean public debate in our secular democracy by inciting polarisation and populism for all the reasons that the Minister has outlined yesterday. I also agree and appreciate that the Government has a responsibility to protect harmony, social cohesion and the integrity of public institutions and political processes against online falsehoods.

Singapore joins robust democracies like Australia, France, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom seeking to use legislative measures to curb online falsehoods. This Bill has added first-in-the-world features such has Corrections Directions.

However, the Bill currently grants far reaching powers to the Government on online communications which raises significant concerns across different segments of our society that these tools may be used – intentionally or otherwise – to suppress or chill debate for political purposes. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, Ms Irene Quay and I submitted a Motion of amendment to this Bill as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The proposed amendments seek to mitigate these concerns by ensuring there is discipline in the way the Act would be utilised while ensuring that the Government has the ability to deal with the full range of threats posed by deliberate online falsehoods. The proposed amendments were, as part of our robust Parliamentary process, vetted by the Attorney-General's Chambers.

Mr Speaker, I will now address specific issues of concerns and corresponding proposed amendments. For any avoidance of doubt, I want to state plainly that my debate here is once again not about "why" we have this Bill – I reiterate that I agree online falsehoods should be legislated – but about how the Bill can realise its full function with these amendments.

A major area of contention that the House has heard is the definition of "fact" and "falsehood" under the Bill. A statement of fact is defined as "a statement which a reasonable person seeing, hearing or otherwise perceiving it would consider to be a representation of fact" while a statement is false "if it is false and misleading, whether wholly or in part, and whether on its own or in the context in which it appears".

I understand that the use of the phrase "a reasonable person" is common in legalese, and is used as shorthand for a hypothetical individual who exercises average care, skill and judgement in conduct, and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability. In the eyes of the court, this "reasonable person test" is one that is objective. However, it appears broad, imprecise and highly subjective to the ordinary citizen who would rightly be concerned with the chilling fear that giving an opinion could be wrongly construed as a false statement of fact.

Many non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are also understandably concerned with such an unclear definition because it is common for NGOs to rely on firsthand accounts of the individuals they represent. They often craft reports, public awareness campaigns and make recommendations on issues with these accounts as the primary source material. However, these accounts may conflict with official interpretations of data by policy-makers or are challenged as inaccurate, especially with the information asymmetry.

For instance, MOM has issued a total of 21 newsroom releases of a corrective nature that it refers to as "Fact Checks" since September 2017. Eighteen of those 21 "fact-checking" press releases, addressed NGO-published content about MOM's priorities, processes and practice. Many of these may technically be considered as opinions to most rather than facts yet MOM presents these instances as a "fact check", and formats these refutations with author's "claim" which is then countered by MOM's "fact".

Let me share another illustration that is not entirely hypothetical. A sexual assault victim might feel uncomfortable sharing the full details of his/her assault experience with the Police but might later disclose important details to case workers, counsellors and researchers. If the NGO grounds its recommendations to legislation on evidence from such accounts, would the Government reject the basis for such recommendations because the accounts do not align with their official records of those cases? Would the findings of the NGO be invalidated if they conflict with what the Government has on record as the “facts” of the case?

Besides the ordinary citizen and civil society, Mr Speaker, the concern with the definition of fact and false as drafted is also shared by the arts and media practitioners, academics and researchers. To mitigate this definitional concern and without meddling with matters of jurisprudence, we propose that a new section called the Principles of the Act be included in the body of the Act. One of the proposed clauses in this section states explicitly that the Bill targets materially false statements and does not apply to "opinions, comments, critiques, satire, parody, generalisations or statements of experiences".

I thank the Minister for agreeing with our intent for this amendment. Mr Speaker, what we are proposing here is certainly not new. We have similar legislative precedents for guiding principles on implementation and administration in the Mental Capacity and Vulnerable Adults Act. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira will elaborate further on this proposed amendment in his speech.

The Government has explicitly assured the public that this Bill is not intended to stifle or chill free speech, debate and criticism, and in fact aims to ensure such debate can occur without the corrosive presence of online falsehoods. However, the Bill as written, when tabled, does not contain such assurances that limit how the Bill's powers can be used.

Mr Speaker, the Ministers are granted powers to issue Part 3 and 4 Directions based on: one, if the statement is false; and two, it affects public interest. Section 4 of the Bill defines, I quote, "public interest" and the circumstances under which it is justified to take action. However, clause 4(f) is again broadly-worded and states: "action is justified under the Bill if the falsehood would prevent a diminution of public confidence in the the Government, an Organ of State, a statutory board, or a part of the Government, an Organ of State or a statutory board".

This definition is reminiscent of but broader than existing laws such as section 11(4) of the Computer Misuse Act where words like "serious harm" and "disruption" prefaces and qualifies the basis of a diminution of public confidence.

The concern is, with such a overreaching scope coupled with the broad and subjective definition of "fact" and "false", that any criticism of the Government could be considered a statement that would diminish public confidence as stated in the Bill. When does a statement cross the threshold from inconsequential personal expression to a threat to public confidence? Would someone opining that the Government is incompetent on Facebook be subject to a Correction Direction if their post gains enough shares or likes to be considered capable of influencing public confidence? In the case of the death of NSF Dominique Lee, Facebook recent posts by his mother critical of the Government received viral status and revived attention to the three-year-old case in 2016. Would her posts be targeted because they contributed to a wave of diminished public confidence in the Government?

Mr Speaker, we seek to amend clauses 13 and 25 of the Bill which set out the provisions for the two Directions, by adding the requirement that each Direction must be publicly justified by the Minister. This means that for each Direction that has been issued, the Government should publicly explain publicly explain or demonstrate three things: (a) evidence that demonstrates the falsehood, or the evidence setting forth the true facts; (b) the public interest objectives of this Direction, and (c) why this Direction is suitable to achieve those public interest objectives.

I am heartened that the Minister agrees with the need for Ministers to provide more specific reasons on falsity and on public interest since this is currently not in the Bill when it was tabled. He assured us yesterday in his speech. He assured this House that this will now be set out in subsidiary legislation. Subsidiary legislation, however, can be amended without coming before Parliament. So, our intent with the amendments clauses 13 and 25 remains unchanged – that this amendment will ensure that any future Minister and/or Government would have to first change the primary legislation – that is tabling it in Parliament, therefore a higher barrier to clear.

The appeals process in clauses 17, 29 and 35 could potentially limit the ability of appellants to seek judicial oversight because all appeals must be made first to the respective domain Minister. Currently, no time frame is provided in the Bill for a decision on the appeal to be made when the Bill was tabled. We seek to amend the clauses to state that the Minister shall do everything reasonable to ensure the appeals process is expeditious and low-cost.

Again, I am grateful that Minister Shanmugam has agreed that this provision that we have proposed is needed and clarified in his speech that this shall be addressed in subsidiary legislation with details. And again, Mr Speaker, our intent with clauses 17, 29 and 35 remains unchanged – that this amendment will ensure that any future Minister and/or Government that attempts to use subsidiary legislation or internal practice to unnecessarily delay the appeals process would have to first change the primary legislation.

Mr Speaker, the Select Committee’s report contained an extensive list of recommendations derived from 170 written representations and their own deliberations. They highlighted, and I quote, that "there is no one silver bullet to combat this complex problem, and a multi-pronged approach is necessary". Indeed, we must refrain from viewing legislation alone as a "silver bullet" that will sufficiently address this complex issue of online falsehoods. The Select Committee report listed five areas of proposed countermeasures: (a) nurture an informed public; (b) reinforce social trust and cohesion; (c) promote fact-checking, (d) disrupt online falsehoods; and (e) deal with threats to national security and sovereignty.

We propose that an independent council be set up to give effect to these Select Committee recommendations – to be called Independent Council on Online Falsehoods. I refer to this henceforth as "The Council". The Council's primary objective is to assure the public that the Government is accountable for the routine exercise of powers under the Act. It ensures that regardless whether Parliament takes an active interest in the exercise of powers under this Act, there will still be routine independent oversight. The Council is empowered to evaluate the actions of the Government under the Act, evaluate other measures taken by the Government to address online Falsehoods, and make recommendations to the Government on the exercise of powers under the Act. The Council is accountable to Singaporeans. In our amendment in Clause B(5)(i), the Council will publish annual reports of its activities, findings and recommendations. I do hope I clarified for Mr Christopher de Souza on his misunderstanding yesterday of the Council as taking over the Ministerial function – we had shared this in the Explanatory Notes which were sent out with the Notice of Amendment on 30 April 2019.

I am glad that the Minister also shared in his speech yesterday that he agrees with the intent of the independent council. I believe that councils for such a purpose do not lead to unnecessary bureaucracy because we have numerous precedents to cite in support of this. The National Council on Problem Gambling set up in 2005 in conjunction with the Casino Control Act to address the social issue of problem gambling. Casinos were introduced to Singapore for the first time then, and we may have been able to clearly justify the economic benefits of the new legislation then at that time, yet we could not have known with certainty the collateral issues and damage, social or otherwise, that may result. The impetus to set up the Independent Council on Online Falsehoods is the same as that of the National Council on Problem Gambling: a recognition that a dedicated independent council is best suited to undertake the national responsibility of assessing the impact of a new legislation and significant development for the country and providing specific expertise to advise the Government on the effectiveness of current measures.

However, Mr Speaker, I would like to highlight that unlike councils stipulated in other legislation, we are proposing that members of the Council are to be appointed by a Select Committee of Parliament, not by a Minister. We believe that this ensures that the Council stands as a separate and independent body from the Government. So, yes, we agree with the Minister that the Executive is accountable to the Parliament, and all Singaporeans. But the Council serves more than the role of oversight.

If there is one thing this House agrees unanimously on through this debate so far, it would be the importance of public education in our war on online falsehoods. Minister Iswaran has announced that a national framework to build information and media literacy will be launched by June 2019, jointly developed by MCI, the National Library Board, IMDA and the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore. MOE will also be rolling out a New Media Literacy toolkit to all Primary and Secondary schools, as well as Junior Colleges. The expertise and knowledge provided by the Council will help enrich these cross agency and whole of nation efforts.

Mr Speaker, I understand that we are the first country to enact such a complex legislative intervention against online falsehoods which could only mean that this will be a steep learning curve for us. If I may, Mr Speaker, I would like to request that all Singaporeans be given a review of all exercise of powers under the Bill by way of a Ministerial Statement in Parliament a year from the implementation of the Bill, with the findings and recommendations from the Independent Council on Online Falsehoods.

The best antidote against the potential harms brought about by fake news is an educated and discerning citizenry. An informed citizenry can only be created and sustained if the Government remains open to debate and criticism in an increasingly complex world. Mistrust in public institutions also facilitates the uptake of falsehoods.

Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat recently stated that the biggest "unknown" challenge that Singapore will face is the "nature of politics". I understand that to be a question of whether Singapore – that is, the people and its Government – will be able to collectively wield sufficient political consensus for the best interests of the country in the long run. I agree with Deputy Prime Minister Heng and believe for that to happen, we need the basis of trust between the Government and the people to be grounded in a climate of psychological security, one which allows all citizens to participate actively in the future of Singapore from a place of safety and responsibility, not fear of punitive consequences.

I acknowledge that it is in the interest of the Government to maintain and further public trust. This would mean using executive powers to protect society and limiting the use of these same powers when they may discourage or chill robust criticism. As the Minister has shared, this Bill seeks to scope down and calibrate the Government’s powers compared to existing laws including the Broadcasting Act, Telecoms Act, and so on. I would therefore sincerely urge the Government to consider reviewing these existing, harsher laws to honour the intent with this Bill of scoping down executive powers.

Mr Speaker, the Minister is right that we are no lawyers and so yes, this last month has been a rich yet steep learning curve for me especially without the benefit of an institutional apparatus but thankfully with the support of a community of lawyers and concerned stakeholders. I would like to humbly remind Members that Parliament has the final authority to approve any laws proposed by the Government. Parliament must meaningfully exercise that authority to further public confidence in our robust parliamentary processes. Minister Shanmugam has said that Ministers exercising their powers under this Bill will be accountable to Parliament and the public, and I believe that process starts with the consideration of these proposed amendments that we have put forth to the Bill, for an inclusive and thriving society that we will and can be.

Finally, I also want to second Ms Irene Quay’s call yesterday for the Whip to be lifted. I urge Members of this House to review the amendments set out in the Order Paper Supplement. Your vote for the specific amendments does not mean you are standing against the legislative intent of the Bill to curb online harms from falsehoods. It means you believe in this parliamentary process to register your, and your constituents’, concerns with the Bill and to ensure that this and future governments are bound to the intent of the Bill.

12.52 pm

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. The threat of online falsehoods is a real and insidious threat that subverts the idealistic notions of free speech. As a teenager, I grew up believing in the concept of the marketplace of ideas where if everyone is free to speak, eventually lies would be exposed and the truth would prevail.

On this basis, there is very little need for the Government to legislate in relation to free speech. Subsequently though, the experiences of life and certainly the study of law have made it clear to me that this idealistic notion is not supported by real world problems.

Speech is restricted for many different reasons. The laws of almost all countries prevent inciting violence or inducing people to commit crimes. Defamation also results in liability in many countries. Hate speech is also getting more attention. In Singapore, there have always been laws that prevent people inciting hatred against others. Generally, the law steps in when freedom of speech is abused to cause harm.

The latest abuse of free speech is the threat of fake news. Minister Shanmugam has set out in vivid colour the nature of this threat in his speech. Falsehoods are deliberately created, for example, by foreign state actors to interfere with and subvert governments and electoral processes in other countries. The fact that US Presidential Election and the Brexit vote involved significant amounts of fake news being circulated and relied on by voters, shows that even the most advanced democracies are vulnerable to this threat.

In parallel, there are many who profit from fake news and these include those who originate as well as those who help circulate it, such as social media platforms who make money from advertising revenues.

Fake news is often sensational, interesting and plausible, so it goes viral. The cost to produce it is not so high as no real research work is needed and it is easy to circulate. In contrast, serious news providers are suffering because the cost of producing real news is high. You have to pay journalists, opinion writers, the cost of publication and even air time.

Ironically, after incurring all these costs to produce real news or considered opinions, which is often not sensational because they are presented fairly, they are increasingly losing market share to those that peddle fake news. News providers all over the world are suffering from falling revenues and profitability. Indeed, this is the complete inverse of the marketplace of ideas – the fake news prevail over the truth.

Essentially, the truth gets drowned out by falsehoods because it is more expensive to produce, less interesting and, ultimately, there are less people producing it as news providers go out of business. This, in turn, also subverts the democratic process which works best when people are well-informed and able to make decisions based on the facts.

It is clear that everyone in this House agrees fake news is a threat. The differences in relation to this Bill are in fact relatively minor, and it has to do in how to address this threat.

My friends from the Workers' Party are with us on the nature of the threat. Their main difference of opinion is they believe the Judiciary should make the decision first and issue directions, rather than the Executive.

What the Bill envisions is a competent authority because fake news is a relatively prevalent problem. Fake news is easy to generate, it is going to be voluminous, and you will need people who will be able to deal with this as and when it comes up. So, you need people who can make a large number of decisions relatively quickly. In this sense, it makes perfect sense to leave it to the Executive or a competent authority. If someone disagrees with the competent authority's decision, they can take it up to the Minister. The allegations that Ministers will abuse power and insinuations that because they are all from the party, it will be used for political purposes; if a Minister were to do that, it can be taken up to the Judiciary. The judicial process is a transparent one. The Judge will decide one way or the other, the Government does not always win, so it is a fair process and it will be open to public scrutiny. So, if there is any abuse of power, there will be public scrutiny on this as well.

In my view, it is a fairly sensible mechanism because it allows things to function efficiently while creating avenues for checks and balances. And in government, you need efficiency. Fake news moves fast and moves quickly, you need an authority to deal with it in a quick way.

I was also interested in the variety of tools. A lot of attention has been given to the Directions which include statements of correction. Of course, this is likely to be the most commonly used tool. But there are also interesting powers included in the Bill which includes powers against false amplifiers and fake news websites. Can the Minister elaborate on how these powers would be used?

There is also an interesting question about what happens to fake news that is already there, already in the public domain, that means news that is not generated in future. Will these laws apply and give the authority powers to deal with that as well? My own view is that it should because the fake news is out there.

The Workers' Party made a lot of allegations about how the Judiciary would be impartial and, therefore, should make the decision and the Judiciary can make the decision quickly. As a practising lawyer, I have to say the Judiciary have a very huge case load. If the Executive have to go before a Judge for every single decision, which we would have to wait several days, depending, because fake news is so easy to generate. In a volatile period, you may have hundreds of fake news articles circulating in a day. Are you supposed to have hundreds of applications in court with the Executive going up against the defendant each time and the Judges to decide under the gun? That would be a complete abuse of the judicial process, a waste of resources and ineffective against the threat. So, I think it is completely unworkable.

But the system of having judicial scrutiny at the end, I think, is actually very effective and very logical, because in a sense, the authority decides first, the Minister has a chance to review, and if the Minister makes an improper decision, that would be under scrutiny by the Judiciary and by the public in that process. So, the Minister is in fact taking more political risk by doing that as opposed to leaving it to the judges, in which case the political risk can be abdicated. So, in this sense, it puts responsibility in the right place for an efficient operation of the mechanism.

There is also an amendment filed by some of our friends, the Nominated Members of Parliament, which include a large number of additional checks. I am grateful they put so much thought into the process and some of the points are well made, in particular, the one about the Minister having to make the decision quickly. I think this is going to be captured in the subsidiary legislation.

But with the greatest of respect to my friends, I do not think a lot of the other mechanisms are probably necessary, including the setting up of a council. Because what you want is a process that operates well and efficiently. It seems to me the work of the council really is to scrutinise how the authorities are exercising their powers and to publish reports on that. I think that can equally well be done by academics or people who have access to the information, and questions in Parliament can be filed about decisions made by the Minister, how many have been made, and so on.

So, I do not think we need to set up another body by statute to achieve this objective. I think many of the objectives for scrutiny and all that can be done through much simpler mechanisms. With that Mr Speaker, I stand and support the Bill. I think it is much needed legislation to deal with the present threat.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank hon Member Mr Vikram Nair for his comments. Just to follow up on his point that the volume of applications may upset the process, and efficiency could be at risk. When we passed POHA yesterday, this House envisaged the setting up of the Protection from Harassment Courts. The remedies that are provided for under POFMA are also available to ordinary Singaporeans, companies in Singapore, thousands of companies under POHA. I would have imagined that the Court actually would be prepared for this volume of applications that could be made to it. Even more so, as we found out yesterday the application process is quite simple. My point is, would it not be foreseeable that actually the Courts could take on that additional task of looking through applications whether it comes from an individual, a company or the Government?

Mr Vikram Nair: My view is that it is unnecessary for the Court to do so and especially if you are in a "hot" situation, say, largely, elections as has happened in the US and in Europe. You have hundreds of articles a day; how are the judges going to come in and make a decision? Is the Executive supposed to come in and take out a hundred applications and then get the respondent for each one? It is far better if they can just make the decision and get it done. And then, if there is a challenge later, that can come up through the judicial process, which is I think a more prudent use of judicial resources.

I believe that the threat of online harassment will not be as prevalent as fake news, because fake news tends to coalesce around certain periods of time and that is when you need to move fast.

Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Just an additional point of clarification to the hon Member, Mr Vikram Nair. He mentioned that the process of a judicial review of directives under POFMA would be unworkable because there would be hundreds of cases of fake news every day. Is the hon Member suggesting that the powers in the POFMA are likely to be exercised, does the hon Member envisage that these powers are likely to be exercised several hundred times every day?

Mr Vikram Nair: It may have to be, depending on the volume of attack we come under, but certainly I think in the elections in Europe and the US, during those periods, there was very large amounts of fake news.

1.03 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir. The Workers' Party opposes the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation (POFMA) Bill. Much as I believe that there is a need for some form of legislation to deal with online falsehoods, the remedy must be appropriate. Indeed, the Bill has generated much concerns and objections from many Singaporeans since its first reading in April. I will share some of the concerns I have about the POFMA Bill.

As part of the conditions for the granting of the various directions under this Bill, under clause 4, the Minister must be of the opinion that it is in the public interest to issue such a Direction, and clause 4 provides a list of definitions or a set of different scenarios of what constituted "in the public interest".

I am concerned with some of the definitions provided in clause 4. I find them to be too general and the precise scope is not clearly spelt out. For example, in the context of falsehoods, what does it mean by "to protect public health or public finances" or "to secure public safety or public tranquility" under clause 4? What acts or words will definitively trigger each of these definitions?

This brings me to the second point of concern about what is in the public interest. For part 3 and 4 Directions, a person who has been served with a Correction or stop Direction, may appeal to the High Court against the Directions after having first applied to the Minister. However, for both part 3 and part 4 Directions, the appeal provisions expressly provide that the High Court may only set aside such a direction on three grounds of appeal as seen in clauses 17(5) and 29(5).

The issue of whether the Minister was correct or not in arriving in his opinion that it is in the public interest to issue the Direction itself does not come within the three grounds of appeal and cannot be decided by the Court on appeal under clause 17 or 29. Similarly, the exact meaning and coverage of the definitions provided in clause 4 cannot be decided by the Court hearing an appeal under clause 17 or 29.

In this connection, the Minister mentioned the availability of judicial review yesterday. As things stand, the procedure and cost regimes for judicial review will be quite different from the procedure and costs regimes for the appeal procedure under clause 17(5) and 29(5). Does the Minister intend to apply the same costs, procedure and timeline requirements for all Court applications or appeal under POFMA including judicial review?

Would it not be better for the Bill to expressly provide for the Court's ultimate jurisdiction over all areas of the Bill including the issue of public interest, and for the same procedure and costs mechanism to apply?

Finally, according to the Explanatory Statement of the Bill, the list of definitions under clause 4 is non-exhaustive. I am concerned about what else may be read by a Minister as a further definition or example of "in the public interest" in the future.

Still on clause 4 of the Bill, clause 4(f) provides for one definition of doing anything in the public interest if the doing is to prevent a diminution of public confidence in the performance of any duty or function of, or in the exercise of any power by the Government, an Organ of state, a Statutory Board and so on.

I believe that the diminution of confidence in Government as a factor warranting legislative action is not found in fake news legislation elsewhere in the world. I am concerned that the extension of the definition of public interest to include not diminishing public confidence in the Government may deter or prevent bona fide criticism and well-meaning intentions to expose genuine Government failings. Above all, no government will always be correct, perfect or beyond reproach. It is for the Government, by its own efforts, to earn and maintain public confidence in itself and any use of law to deter the diminution of public confidence will run counter to that.

Next, the Bill provides, at clause 2(2), the definition of a statement of fact and a definition of when a statement is false.

Already, many commentators have said that the distinction between a statement of fact and an opinion may not always be easy to draw, not to mention the difference between a statement of fact and an opinion of a statement of fact. Different surveys using different parameters produce different outcomes; they may all not be wrong, they may even constitute statement of facts in different ways but they prove that there can be divergence on what can constitute statement of facts.

Under the Bill, 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. The definition is troubling. The definition of "if it is false or misleading, whether wholly or in part, whether on its own or in the context in which it appears" under clause 2(2) is too wide especially the requirement of "misleading" alone.

It would be misleading according to whose standards or opinion? And how would it be misleading?

For example, if I were to say something in good faith according to my own views, but what if the Minister and even the Court decides that it meant something else and is different from what I have explained? I did not even think of the Minister's view when I uttered those words. Would that not be very unfair to me as I did not intend that meaning? Why should I be subject to his Correction or stop Directions? Why should I have to appeal to the Courts? Should he not apply to the Court if he feels aggrieved in the first place and the courts can decide at first instance whether a Correction or stop Direction is necessary?

Next, according to clause 2(2), an article can be deemed to be a false statement even if only a part of it or a small part of it is false or misleading. Is there a risk that as a result of a small or even irrelevant or inconsequential factual error in an otherwise cogent article with serious issues, the article can be taken down, preventing the bulk of the meritorious arguments and issues raised in the article from being read and disseminated?

I am also troubled by the definitions of "statement of facts" which have been defined as not false or misleading, rather than just "false" or "false and misleading". Such definitions can be opened to different interpretations. For example, if I were to tell some people that I made a Police report against someone. In my opinion, that is a simple statement of fact, period; there is nothing much to disagree or to dispute. I made the Police report, surely I know that as a fact. But when one applies the definition "misleading", what I have said may be interpreted by another to be something beyond what I ever intended to say or mean. And history has shown that such statements could be subject to different interpretations.

And how would it affect articles or reports of an opinion nature which premised its theories or findings on anonymous contributors? This could be by a journalist or even an academic. Those who contributed their opinion or feedback or even to a survey may have good personal reasons for their anonymity and not necessarily because they are, as a matter of integrity, afraid to stand up for what they have said. How will the journalist or newspaper be able to challenge an order on appeal given the circumstances? I fear that this new law will discourage journalists in their writings particularly where the source of information cannot, for whatever reasons, be fully disclosed or cited in Court.

To me, the most uncomfortable aspect of the Bill is the Minister being the first and even final arbiter under this Bill. The Workers' Party objects to the Minister being an arbiter under this Bill. We think that the Minister in question should apply to the Courts for an order under this Bill and let the Courts be the sole arbiter.

Many in Singapore have voiced this concern about the Government or the Minister being the final arbiter. The Government has been saying that the courts are the final arbiter. For part 3 and 4 Directions, that is only true insofar as any appeal comes within the three narrow grounds in clauses 17(5) and 29(5). If the Courts are the final arbiter, why circumscribe and limit their powers in these ways? Why not let the Courts be the sole arbiter under this Bill?

As I have said earlier, even the Minister's opinion of whether the Minister was correct or not in arriving at his opinion that it is in the public interest to issue the direction cannot be decided by the court when it hears an appeal under clause 17 or 29.

And even for appeal under the three grounds in clauses 17(5) and 29(5), it may only be true if the party being subjected to a Minister's order under this Bill does in fact actually appeal to the courts. Until then, there is no judicial scrutiny. And if the party affected does not appeal to the court for whatever reason, the Minister's order would have gone unscrutinised by the High Court – rightly or wrongly.

Even when the appeal is pending, the Bill expressly provides for the Minister's Direction to continue. Would this not create injustice if the appeal was later allowed, proving that the Minister was wrong in the first place? In such cases, if the aggrieved person has suffered damages, he may not even be able to claim against the Minister.

Further, in certain circumstances, a Minister may potentially find himself in a position of conflict of interest when he invokes POFMA in respect of criticisms or complaints of wrongdoing either on his part or in respect of his own Ministry. Is there any provision to handle such conflict of interest?

Next, we do not have a Freedom of Information regime and well-meaning citizens may not have the same access to information unlike the Government and complaints may have arisen from well-meaning people where it may not be convenient to disclose the source of their information.

In the situation where the Government has access to certain information and for whatever reason refuses to disclose full facts in the first place, even on request, it would be unfair to penalise anyone arising from a media report or something discussed in social media.

Significantly, the procedure under POFMA is different from the procedure in POHA where the court there is truly the one and only arbiter. Any aggrieved person wishing to make an application under POHA applies to the court. If that works for everyone else, should the same procedure not apply to the Government in the case of POFMA?

In my view, the Courts should be given the exclusive rights to decide on any application under POFMA at first instance and the Courts' jurisdiction should extend to all areas and issues under the Bill.

Next, I think the same Court should handle and decide both POHA and POFMA applications. This is not currently the case as under the POFMA Bill, the High Court hears any appeal against the Minister's Direction or order. On the other hand, applications under POHA are heard in the State Court.

Without derogating from my earlier position that the courts should be the only arbiter for POFMA, let me now deal with some procedural aspects of the Bill.

For parts 3 and 4 of the Bill, if the affected person wishes to appeal to the court against the Minister's stop or Correction Direction, he first needs to apply to the Minister in question to vary or cancel the order. This seems odd to me as I am rather circumspect that a Minister will change his mind within a matter of days after his order.

The additional step of notifying the Minister is akin to being part of the appeal process itself and will merely add time to the affected person's wait for the court hearing his appeal, but time may be of the essence to the affected person especially when the Minister's Direction is wrongful and is bringing wrongful harm to the individual. In any case, I find the idea of, in effect, appealing to the accuser to be a little odd.

Next, in POHA an aggrieved party apply for an order has essentially the burden of proving his case to the judge deciding on whether an order should be given. In POFMA, the aggrieved party, in this case a Minister or the Government, does not have to prove to any authority or adjudicator when it first decides on a direction under the Bill, such as a Correction Direction or a stop communication Direction.

Even when a defendant who is subject to a Part 3 direction feels that the minister is wrong in issuing such a direction and wishes to appeal to the Courts, the Minister does not seem to have the primary burden of persuading the Court de novo that it is entitled to issue the order in question. In any case, this is not clearly or expressly set out in the Bill.

In both civil and communal actions, it would be fair to say that the plaintiff and the prosecutor, respectively, bear the primary burden to prove the case in Courts. The burden of proof in an appeal under clause 17 or 29 of POFMA appears to be on the person who is the subject of a Minister's Directions under POFMA. This should not be the case. Surely, the Minister and the Government as the aggrieved party must always bear the burden of proof for any Direction or order under POFMA.

In closing, the Minister cannot be an arbiter for any order or direction under POFMA. The Courts should be given that role exclusively. Like many Singaporeans, I fear that the Bill, if passed, will create a chilling effect, whether for journalists, legitimate interest groups, academics or the average Singaporean. It may deter people from speaking up. It may encourage journalists or academics to err on the side of caution for falling foul of the law. If a Minister or the Government is not forthcoming in providing clarificatory facts, it may encourage journalists or even common citizens to practise self-censorship at the expense of truth. It will discourage bona fide criticism and stifle public debate. Along with my Workers' Party colleagues, I cannot support the Bill.

1.17 pm

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, in 1633 the scientist Galileo Galilei was put on trial by the Roman Inquisition of the Catholic Church. The charge? Promoting the heliocentric theory that the Earth travels around the Sun. We take this as fact today. But the geocentric model, which incorrectly puts Earth at the centre of the Universe, was accepted fact for thousands of years. Galileo’s contribution was to use the first astronomical telescope – which he invented – to precisely observe the stars. Galileo argued these observations meant the heliocentric model was a provable fact, and not a theory. This forced the Inquisition to act.

The Inquisition did not reject Galileo's scientific evidence. However, they found his evidence fundamentally incompatible with The Bible. The Bible has passages stating the Earth is immovable. The Inquisition interpreted this as a matter of fact. Galileo was forced to recant, on pain of being condemned as a heretic. His books were forbidden. Legend has it that Galileo said, after recanting, “And yet it moves”. Mr Speaker, beliefs do not change the nature of reality.

What are the lessons for this debate? I take three points. First, when we speak of the problem of online falsehoods the real concern is our shared reality as a society. I agree with the Minister that this is the central concern: what is the infrastructure of facts that we depend on as a society? Galileo was part of a wider battle to define shared reality at the end of the Renaissance in Europe. Would reality be defined by science and reason, or by tradition and religion?

Second, governments are concerned about shared reality, because our beliefs have practical consequences. Galileo's findings supported a reality that threatened the temporal power of the Church. Populists today and in history have spread lies to promote the alternative reality where society is under threat justifying the use of extraordinary powers to save democracy.

Points one and two, taken together, mean that judgements about shared reality by governments are inherently political acts. I do not mean they are always partisan acts, carried out for narrow political gain. A good government would not act that way. I trust that this Government would not. But they are political acts because they serve the definition of public interest that the government of the day believes in.

Third, governments can get assessments of fact wrong. The Church of Galileo’s time was not opposed to science. The earliest degrees granted by universities were in the fields of law, medicine and theology. Galileo’s supporters included princes and priests of the Church. They were among the few people in Europe who had the education at the time to appreciate his findings. But even a government of experts can have blind spots.

This brings us to the central dilemma. A good government must act to defend the shared reality that best serves the public interest. But even a good government may face the temptation to gradually conflate the public interest with their own political gain. This may be subtle. It may be through sins of omission, by neglecting to fix blind spots in judgment, rather than by promoting falsehoods outright. It may be true to believe that the public interest demands the suppression of all competing ideologies. But as with Galileo, these good intentions may eventually lead a good government to ignore reality. That is why the best government of all will shackle itself where necessary rather than grant itself more power.

I believe this Government understands this dilemma more than most. That is why this Government sincerely believes it has crafted a Bill that shackles itself while granting the necessary powers to defend our infrastructure of truth. Our disagreement is about whether this Bill has got this balance right.

Sir, let me put on the record who is concerned about this Bill. One hundred and twenty-four academics in Singapore and abroad, including 52 Singaporeans, signed a statement expressing concern that the Bill could adversely affect academic research on Singapore, especially in social sciences where critical research contests established facts and narratives. Other parties expressing concern include 30 Singaporean civil society and arts community organisations,The Asia Internet Coalition, traditional and independent online media, the International Commission for Jurists, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights.

I will stand corrected, but I do not think these parties are enemies of Singapore. I do not think they are agents of the forces who propagate online falsehoods. You will find in their statements broad agreement with the Bill’s legislative intent. I agree with the Bill's intent.

Online falsehoods are dangerous. Even if there is no malevolent intent, they may distort our shared reality and lead to harmful decisions. They are not readily corrected through self-regulation or education. They spread virally, and when there is a threat of imminent harm to society, government has a duty to act immediately to stop the threat. This Bill will create novel and proportionate tools, such as Correction Directions, that preserves online speech and promotes public education while minimising harm.

I do not agree with all of the concerns expressed by the parties I have cited. The Minister has been kind to correct some of the misconceptions out there. My concern rather is that some of the debate around this Bill has conflated criticism of the Bill with support for irresponsible freedom of speech or with sinister intent towards Singapore. Sir, constructive criticism is not an unpatriotic act.

Let me now speak for the group I am most familiar with. Academics do not challenge the right of governments or the public to dispute scientific facts. Knowledge advances by dispute. But such disputes must honour the essential character of scientific research, which is evidence based, driven by scientific methods, and held up to the highest standards of scrutiny.

Academics are concerned that when a government adjudicates scientific disputes there is a fundamental conflict of interest, as in my earlier example of Galileo and the Catholic Church. All governments have a political objective to defend a shared reality that suits their interest. For example, the United States Environmental Protection Agency changes its views on the climate change science depending on who is President. Is it in the public interest for science to be unnecessarily determined by politics?

The other concern is scientific reputation. An academic whose scientific findings are the subject of a direction would not be able to communicate them online without risk of contravening the direction. She might have to write to scientific journals to ask for a retraction or correction. The journal would ask why. If our Government is not able to answer to the satisfaction of international experts, it would bring scientific condemnation on our country. Sir, the United States can survive an administration with anti-scientific tendencies because good scientists have nowhere else to go for now. Is it in the public interest to discourage even inadvertently research that uses Singapore for field studies or to further our knowledge of social science and ourselves?

Let me now turn to why we tabled these amendments. We are concerned the Bill does not sufficiently limit, guide and oversee the exercise of Executive powers against online Falsehoods. Members have received our Explanatory Notes. Before I explain our amendments further I wish to first touch on points of agreement with the Bill. I thank the Minister and his staff for consulting with us throughout, though of course, we are solely responsible for the amendments.

We accept the two-part test for Executive action, including the definition of falsehood and the broad definition of the public interest. While we have concerns these give the Executive very broad powers, we could not develop constructive amendments that would be feasible for the Courts in trying facts, while also granting the Executive the discretion to act urgently to protect the public interest. We also accept the Executive must have power to act urgently. Developing an amendment to create a role for ex-ante judicial or independent oversight proved challenging, and risks considerable harm in the event of an immediate threat. Nonetheless, accepting the Bill as it is, in these areas, means we accept the Executive should have considerable latitude.

Rather, we decided to do is the best way we feel of limiting the discretion of the Executive was to ensure that we develop robust institutions within and without Government, to address online Falsehoods without fear or favour. These institution building amendments have two major parts. The Principles of Act, and the Independent Council Against Online Falsehoods. In addition our amendments require that any Directions issued are publicly justified, and require that the appeals process is expedited. My colleague Ms Anthea Ong has spoken on the Council. I will discuss the Principles which provide a guide to the exercise of powers under the Act.

The Principles of Act state that well-informed, free and critical speech is necessary for a well-functioning democracy, so the Act should be applied carefully to avoid chilling such speech. It codifies that the Act is targeted at statements which are materially false and not opinions, comments, critiques, satire, parody, generalisations or statements of experiences.

It sets out that the Act should be used proportionately, so the least restrictive tools, such as Corrections, are used first, with the most restrictive – take-downs – used only when necessary. It also protects the role of research in society as research often contests established facts or ideas in order to advance knowledge by stating that differences in facts established by an authority and a researcher do not imply falsehood just by that difference alone.

I believe the Minister’s view is that the Government accepts many of these Principles. However, the Minister also believes the Principles create legislative confusion because they may already duplicate elements present in the Bill or in law. For example, I believe the Minister's view – and that of a Senior Counsel – is that proportionality in the exercise of powers is already incorporated in the "necessary or expedient" term used in the public interest clause of the Bill. I stand corrected if I have misunderstood.

But given proportionality is so important to avoid unnecessarily restricting speech and to build trust with the public, we believe the Bill must state clearly the principles behind what proportionality means in practice. We can accept that there may be better ways of phrasing the Principles. However, we disagree that it would be sufficient to have the Bill without the Principles of Act at all, or other amendments in plain language that have similar effect.

The Government has previously defined plain language Principles of the Act in the Mental Capacity Act and the Vulnerable Adults Act. This is important because these Acts give Government officials significant power over the autonomy and rights of persons. This Bill will also give Government officials significant powers over speech.

It is crucial that every Government official involved in the exercise of powers abide by a common set of principles in administering the Act. What is the difference between doing so in the Bill, versus leaving it to subsidiary legislation or internal regulation? Sir, the difference is governance. Subsidiary legislation can be changed without a Parliamentary vote. The primary legislation cannot.

The real value, Sir, of these Principles comes in using them as a basis for building an institution that the public trusts. An institution that is not dependent on the political interests in charge. I believe the opposing benches are agreed that one such institution is the Judiciary. But we know there may be practical difficulties with having the Courts decide on fast-moving online falsehoods.

So, why not a third way, why not strengthen the capacity of the Civil Service to implement these rules fairly, guided by the Principles.

I will now discuss what this Act will mean in practice. How would the Executive use the powers under this Act? One way to answer this is to examine how the Government has already been addressing the problem of online falsehoods. I conducted a review of Government actions against misinformation from 2015 to 2019. This review documented all posts on the Government's Factually website, as well as Fact Checks issued by MOM and MSF.

I first established for each Government action whether POFM would apply. Is there a specific subject statement that is potentially false? I assumed that the public interest test would be satisfied since these cases were serious enough for a Government response. Then, I examined the dispute. Is it mainly a dispute over facts or a dispute over conclusions drawn from facts that are not themselves contested? Finally, I examined whether the Ministry responded using keywords that declare publicly whether this case involves a matter for clarification, a misrepresentation or an outright falsehood.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to display a slide on the LED screens?

Mr Speaker: Yes, please. [ A slide was shown to hon Members. ]

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Thank you. I analysed 170 cases of Government action against online misinformation from 2015 to 2019; 110 cases involve no disputed facts, they are simply clarifications of policy. The Act would not apply. Of the remaining 60 cases, while facts were disputed, seven did not identify a subject statement. The Act would not apply.

Most Government actions on misinformation over the last few years would not have used any powers under the act because it does not apply. There is either no specific disputed fact or no identifiable subject statement.

The remaining 53 cases are for specific subject statements with an identifiable source. These are cases where the Act may have potentially applied retrospectively, for example. Forty-three of these 53 cases are disputes involving the facts. The other 10 involve disputes over the conclusions drawn from facts.

Overall, the Government is quite clear about how it labels disputes involving the facts. Most are considered falsehoods, although some are considered clarifications or misrepresentations instead.

What I am concerned about is those cases which are declared to be falsehoods by the language the Government uses, although the dispute is actually over conclusions drawn from facts.

Let me illustrate with one example from MSF, although I am not picking on the Ministry; it is actually one of my favourite Ministries. In 2017, MSF reported data showing a sharp rise in ComCare assistance recipients between 2012 and 2015. A subject statement made the claim that this was and I quote, "the worst poverty result ever officially reported in Singapore", end quote. MSF called this and I quote, "not true", end quote, and MSF explained that a growth in ComCare recipients reflects more generous social welfare policies. Thank you, MSF.

My view is that this is a difference of opinion based on the same facts and not a falsehood. I will stand corrected, but I do not think there was an attempt by the subject statement to make up or distort the ComCare numbers. It was simply an interpretation of the facts. I think a Ministry should be free to make value judgements about criticism including labelling criticisms as false. But more caution is required to avoid the incorrect exercise of powers under the Act. The Ministry must set the record straight. But these differences in opinion may arise because the public may only have partial information. In this case, they may know about ComCare receipts but they may not know about changes in social welfare policy. We should not label such differences in interpretation as falsehoods, especially if the Ministry has not released all the relevant information.

Sir, I know this Government shares my conviction that government must be transparent and open in administration. We must ensure the public continues to have trust in the Government. This is why we have proposed the Principles of Act, which will help to build an institution that appropriately limits the exercise of these important powers.

Mr Speaker, I will not stand against the Bill that I believe, in the hands of a just and capable Government, will be used in the public interest. I agree with the principles of the Bill, and I support the Second Reading of this Bill. But I find it difficult to support final passage of this Bill unless I am satisfied the Bill contains strong protections against abuse by an unjust future Government. I understand why Members of the Government may not share my reservations. I accept they have great confidence that their present good governance will continue. But for me, this is a matter of policy and of conscience. I hope the Government will consider allowing a conscience vote for its Members.

1.35 pm

Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng (Pioneer): Before I speak on this Bill, Mr Speaker, I would like to comment on what Assoc Prof Walter Theseira talked about. I think as a Member of the House, I too appreciate and support free speech. I too support the investigation and exploration of new ideas and so forth. I believe that if there is indeed a "Galileo" today in Singapore, we will all be cheering rather than stopping what he is doing.

This Bill while met with quite a lot of discussion, is actually not that complex. While there are many discussions about what truth is – is it epistemological truth? Is it David Hume's version of it? Is it evidence before the Courts? But fundamentally, we have a real practical problem and we have to deal with it.

Rather than tinkering with the separation of powers at the state, be it elected Members and the party having the largest number of Members forms the Government and separating this Executive power with Legislative power and Judicial power – and we have modified that with Presidential powers – to tinker with this, just for the purpose of this Bill, is quite dangerous. I think all parties should give deep thought to whether or not we should introduce another layer of power structure, which the Nominated Members of the Parliament called the Independent Council to oversee the Government when Ministers supported by civil servants, are already elected, already have a mandate, to ensure peace and order in the society and is always accountable for their actions in this Bill through a judicial review or statutory appeal. But more importantly, every five years, at the ballot box. Would an Independent Council be subject to that? I think we need to think carefully before we decide which direction to take.

It is very heartening that most Members of the Parliament who have spoken agree that fake news is a real problem and we need to deal with it, especially when public interest is at stake. As I understand listening to Minister Shanmugam, this Bill applies only on two conjunctive conditions. One, falsehoods. But that is not enough. Two, public interest is harmed. So, the parts of the public critique and comments and criticism that do not impinge on these two conditions, would be free to flow, as they have been. But the disagreement seems to be, "Who should be the decision maker?" Should it be the Executive branch, which I interpret as the Minister supported by the civil service; or the Courts; or a separate council. Now, I understand from the Nominated Members of the Parliament that the separate council is not the party who would make the decision whether an issue is true or false, but to be a review committee, over and above, for Executive branch decisions. I do not see where they get the mandate to do that.

There can be three possible bodies which can be the decision maker. Let us see which makes the most sense. To answer this question, it is important to know that fake news that have gone viral and yet undermine public interest have to be dealt with very very quickly. So, "speed" I think is the first criterion to judge whether Executive branch is best placed, Judiciary is best placed or an independent council to oversee is best placed.

We have heard many examples that have been discussed here. I will just point out two. In March this year, videos circulating on Facebook, Snapchat and so on, claims kidnappers in vans are abducting children for prostitution and illegal organ trades. This happened in the French area. The accusations were made, falsely of course, against the French Roma community or the Gypsies. The Gypsies were attacked by unprovoked vigilante mobs, even though this rumour is totally false and baseless. Two men from the Roma community were hospitalised and their van burnt.

Another example in Medan, Indonesia, in July 2016, a woman complained about the use of loudspeakers at a mosque near her home. Rumour has it then, fake news, that she also threw items at the mosque and disrupted prayer sessions. This incited angry mobs who started burning and ransacking Buddhist temples with damages running into billions of Rupiahs. So, a lack of speed, and these are the consequences.

The second criterion, I believe is, the issue on "accountability". If the Government is elected and the party with the most seats in Parliament forms the government, they have not only the mandate and responsibility, they are accountable to make sure that public peace and social stability is at all times preserved. It also has the resources, being backed by the Civil Service and the expertise in many, many domains, whether it is medical, security, health, water and so on. Falsehoods can be quite insidious in any one of these areas. I really do not see another institution in Singapore which has this deep expertise in many, many domains, as I described.

In management science, it is logical that the party who is held accountable and with the resources and the expertise, must be the party who should act. And so, I believe and I support that the Executive branch supported by the Civil Service should be the right party to act.

I also want to point out that in the Select Committee report, there was a recommendation number 12, and I have an excerpt here: "New legislation", talking about POFMA, "will need to be implemented to combat online falsehoods and such legislation should have the following objectives." And prime among them, number one, "the measures will need to achieve the objective of breaking virality by being effective in a matter of hours." I am quoting the Select Committee report.

I would also want to point out that Mr Pritam Singh, is a member of the Select Committee, and the Committee collectively agreed, that whatever law is legislated and whoever is the decision maker, it is very very important that actions must be able to be taken in a matter of hours.

Just yesterday, I heard Mr Singh debating on the POHA Bill. He was basically asking that, if the aggrieved party wants to have an expedited protection order and so on, would the Court be fast enough. So, I see a contradiction of why the Workers' Party is supporting the Judiciary as the party to make such orders in the case of the POFMA. As a Member, and the Workers' Party Leader in the Select Committee, he agreed to recommendation number 12, that whichever party is to be made the decision maker, that party must be able to act in a matter of hours.

Also, there was a paragraph in the Select Committee report, paragraph 364(B), where Assoc Prof Goh Yi Han, Dean of the SMU School of Law, was a proponent of the Executive option. He is a learned man, in the School of Law and he supported the Executive option, which means that the Minster, supported by the Civil Service, will be the party making such decisions. And here again, I want to quote what the report said: "Assoc Prof Goh explained that the judicial process, while important, may not be sufficiently fast to deal with the rapid spread of online falsehoods. Court processes require an application for Court Order to be made, together with a supporting affidavit. The application must then be served on the person against whom the order is sought and that person can then file an affidavit in reply. So the Court may require a hearing before coming to any decision."

So, there are eminent and learned persons who support the Executive being the decision maker.

But to be fair, there were also some representors at the Select Committee who were sceptical of the Executive action, but they too, and I quote from the report: "also accepted that there are situations such as those involving public order, national security and workings of public institutions where only the Executive", and these are the sceptics who were representing to the Select Committee, "where only the Executive will hold the facts and where facts should be backed of the authority of the Executive." Here, I assume the whole machinery of the Civil Service supporting the Executive.

While POFMA is to empower Ministers and Civil Service to act, of course, the Court is empowered as a final arbiter of truth. Actually, to think about it, at the end of the day, the ultimate arbiter are the voters at the ballot box. Ultimately, the court of public opinion will be the final judge of whether the Government has done its job well.

So, I am less excited about the idealism or the imagined complexity, or some may say the falsehood around the POFMA Bill, than the practical need for us to act quickly against a very real present and very critical problem – fake news.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

1.47 pm

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was out of the Chamber when Mr Foo made his speech but I have noted Mr Cedric Foo's comments. Just to be sure so that I do not misquote him, I understand his two main issues were that I was part of the Select Committee and the Select Committee's recommendation was that quick action was important – response time being within a matter of hours. That was the first. And second was, that yesterday during the POHA debate, I asked whether Courts will be fast enough.

I will deal with the second issue first because that is more pertinent. We found out during the POHA debate yesterday that when there is an issue affecting an individual or a company, there is an easy form to fill out – or at least, this is what the Minister assured us – for individuals or companies to take action to deal with online falsehoods quickly. And let us remember, virality is not an issue that only affects the Government. It also affects individuals and companies. And we know that there was a reference made to making that process more straightforward, streamlined, easier.

I used an example during the POHA debate about a matter that was brought up by Minister Shanmugam on 13 April in a Channel NewsAsia interview where he said that you can have a situation of a company, an online falsehood has been made against it, and in four or five hours, billions of dollars could be lost. If individuals are expected to rely on the Harassment Courts for quick remedies, it is my position that we can expect a speedy response to come from the Courts. Of course, it would mean raising the Courts to be able to deal with those problems. That I can concede – that you will need Courts to respond quickly.

But it does not contradict my signing off from the Select Committee Report on an option to ensure that the response is a speedy one because I believe that the Courts can respond speedily and that the expedited timeline or an appropriate interim order can deal with the prima facie falsehood. That means the case the Government brings to the Court, the Protection from Harassment Courts is – is this a prima facie falsehood? Questions of having to sieve through evidence really turn on how real the issue is and the prima facie nature of the evidentiary threshold should deal with the issue of speed.

Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

1.50 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Fake news can bring real harm.

Last year, there was this fake news that seniors can get a $30 transport top-up if they go to the community centres (CCs) before 12 November. Although the authorities had clarified, many seniors still went to the CCs with their walking stick in hand and waited there. The seniors do not know how to verify online news and they can be easily fooled by fake news. Some people also spread fake news that after people died, their CPF cannot be passed on to their inheritors in cash form. This has caused much anxiety amongst the elderly.

As for those who create such fake news, do they not have elderly parents and grandparents, too? Why do they target the seniors? I hope that after POFMA is passed, if such incidents happen again, we can prevent more seniors from being fooled and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Our racial and religious harmony can easily be harmed by fake news. Recently, in France, accounts from foreign countries have been spreading anti-minority fake news, resulting in the increase of inter-racial violence. We all know that many Asian countries also have "fake news factories" trying to do damage to our racial and religious relations.

To protect the elderly and minorities, we must quickly correct falsehoods and limit their spread. If we only rely on the Court or an independent committee, they still have to verify with the Government agencies. The speed of correction may not be that fast. Ministers will also have to stand in elections. If they abuse the law, Singaporeans will definitely make wise choices.

Lastly, many residents asked me if someone inadvertently forwards a fake story, what will happen to him. I hope that the Minister can clarify.

( In English ): Sir, I support this move to I support this move to criminalise the creation and dissemination of falsehoods that would harm the public interest.

I would like to highlight two groups that are especially vulnerable to the effects of fake news – elderly and minorities.

Many elderly people have gradually become accustomed to using Facebook and WhatsApp. But they are a lot less savvy when it comes to identifying and clarifying fake news, and understanding how photographs and videos can be altered. They are inclined to take things they see on the Internet at face value, especially information circulated by their friends.

Last year, there was a hoax which claimed that all senior citizens would get a free top up of $30 on their EZ-Link cards at the community centres (CCs) on 12 November. The Ministry of Transport clarified that seniors have 10 months to apply for subsidies. But we still saw long lines at many CCs. Although we deployed staff to explain, many frail seniors still waited in line for a long time. When staff sent me pictures of elderly lining up, some with canes or wheelchairs, it really pained me.

There are also other hoaxes that make the elderly worried about their CPF savings, saying the savings would not be given in cash to their heirs. Even when they are clarified, the clarification does not reach everyone and many elderly are still unnecessarily distressed. And when the elderly are victims of fake news, for example, when elderly stallholders are accused of selling contaminated food, they might not be notified promptly or might not know how to clarify online.

I do not know why people would create fake news that targets old people. Do they not have elderly parents and grandparents too? I hope with these new laws, we can stop the news from spreading and punish such despicable people.

The other group that can be badly affected are minorities. In many countries, fake news about minorities has led to attacks against them. Often, this fake news comes from fake news factories abroad. Including in mature democracies like France, where the Roma people were attacked after rumours of them kidnapping children, which my colleague, Mr Cedric Foo mentioned just now.

We know there are fake news factories in many Asian countries, so this could happen to us too. Already, we see many hoaxes saying that halal-certified food is actually haram , spreading panic in the Muslim community. Worse rumours could arise too. How will we enforce the law when falsehoods originate from overseas? Do we have agreements with other countries and tech companies to help us investigate and prosecute these criminals?

When fake news circulates, especially if it targets the elderly and minorities, we need to make sure the clarifications reach everyone. We will save these vulnerable groups plenty of heartache and even prevent violence against them.

Therefore, I agree with the idea of the Government making a quick decision, to ask the tech companies to clarify or take down fake news. If we leave it to the Courts or a committee, they will be comprised of generalists. To determine whether something is true or false, they have to get information from the Ministries anyway.

By the time the decision is made, maybe riots will have already broken out. Certainly, the fake news would have spread far and wide.

Ministers' decisions could be challenged in Court, and they can be voted out if they make a decision that is obviously just to suppress critical opinions. Compare that to a committee that is appointed and paid by the Government, and gets most of its facts from the Government, but cannot be voted out, which one is more accountable?

My next question is, many residents have asked me, if they do not know a story is false and forwarded it, what will happen to them?

Sir, Workers' Party's Members of Parliament have made much ado about the Bill, claiming that it is an insidious attempt by the Government to deter critics. They do not seem to have read the Bill and have made a variety of misleading statements to fearmonger on the Bill.

Mr Low claims that the Bill gives the Government absolute power. He completely overlooks and fails to address what the Minister said yesterday that the Bill contains a narrower set of powers which increase oversight for the Courts. What is his basis for saying the Government is trying to increase its powers? If the Government was really as power hungry as Mr Low describes, why put forth a Bill that is more narrow in scope? People can easily and quickly bring a challenge to Court and the Court will decide on whether there is a false statement of fact. Why would a Minister expose himself to a challenge he will lose?

Mr Low also gives misleading examples to claim that the Bill has an expansive scope which will affect Singaporeans' daily lives. He says that if a Minister says that the older generation cannot accept a non-Chinese Prime Minister, this will be an opinion. But if a political opponent says the same thing, a Minister may use the Bill against that opponent.

Mr Low also suggests that the Bill may be used against comments. For example, saying that the Pioneer and Merdeka Generation Packages are to buy votes. He is completely wrong.

These examples Mr Low cited are all clear opinions. Minister for Law clarified this yesterday, both in his speech and through the list of examples he circulated.

And if the Government were to use the Bill as the Workers' Party alleges, do you think Singaporeans will take it lying down?

Mr Low should not mislead when the position in the Bill is clear. He is trying to mislead people and create fear. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr Speaker: Mr Cedric Foo.

2.01 pm

Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to answer Mr Pritam Singh's earlier question. I just want to ask him if being a Member of the Select Committee and having had the chance to read the Select Committee report and agreeing to it, specifically recommendation 12, where in the first instance, the first principle, in order to deal with it, we must deal with it with speed, in a matter of hours. So, the first part of my question to him is: does he deny that now? Does he now say that countering fake news can take much longer? Or does he still subscribe to the fact that it has to be dealt in a matter of hours?

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thought I have made that clear but I will repeat myself. Obviously, there will be instances where the response has to be dealt with within hours. But the question is whether the Select Committee report commits itself to the Executive being the decision maker. This is the key point. The Select Committee report does not commit to the Executive as the decision maker. And I think the point that needs to be re-emphasised is, there is no need for me to take my name away from any conclusion of the Select Committee report, I stand by it. But a speedy response can be foreseen, can be fathomable through another decision maker, namely the Judiciary.

Mr Speaker: Mr Foo.

Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and Mr Singh for answering and affirming that he agrees that "a matter of hours" is of utmost importance. He also said just now that he agrees that the Judiciary needs to be "bulked up" or whatever exact words were used, in order to respond in a matter of hours. And coming back to the earlier point, I am not saying that the Select Committee report made a decision or conclusion on who the decision maker must be. I agree with him on. But if the Judiciary has to be bulked up to be able to handle issues in a matter of hours as opposed to the Executive branch which is supported by 16 Ministries, about 135,000 officers with years of experience in different domains – security, economics, health, education and fake news can occur anywhere – how long does it take to bulk up the Judiciary before it can respond in a matter of hours?

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, the point that I think Mr Foo is making is that the Court needs to be bulked up. Yesterday, during the POHA Second Reading, we were informed that the process of applying against online falsehoods for individuals and companies would be a quick one and separate Courts have been set up for this for Singaporeans, for individuals and for companies. And it is in that context that I believe that a speedy response is possible through the Courts because those Courts are going to be set up by virtue of the amendments we passed under POHA.

Mr Speaker: Mr Foo, are there any new points?

Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng: Yes, probably the last engagement to give others a chance to speak. POHA is for private matters, and if somebody felt that they had been harassed, as a private individual, they will go to the Courts. I think Minister and Senior Minister of State have spoken about how to make the Courts a little more efficient and lower costs for such purposes.

POFMA that we are debating now is about public interest, it is about riots, it is about possible spread of wild fire, it is about racial disharmony. These are huge, these are public interest matters that have to be dealt with much faster than individual interest under POHA which whilst important are not as urgent as in cases under POFMA which are both important and urgent, and have to be dealt with right away. So, if it is to equip the Courts to have the same capacity, response time, experience and domain knowledge as the Executive branch, then I think it is a very far-fetched idea. I do not see how the Courts can reach that state.

Mr Speaker: Mr Perera.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh then.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, it is not my understanding that in cases of online falsehoods targeted against individuals and companies POHA is going to present a slow outlet for these individuals. That process also can be quick. If not, there would be no provisions for interim orders. So, I disagree with this idea – unless I have gotten POHA completely wrong – that individuals and companies cannot expect a fast, expeditious solution to falsehoods that have been carried against them. So, again, the Workers' Party will stick to the point and we believe that the Courts actually can respond to online falsehoods speedily.

Mr Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.

2.07 pm

Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Sir. Mr Singh, Recommendation 12 opens with "the Government should have the powers to swiftly disrupt the spread and influence of online falsehoods". The Government. The Government should have the powers and the objectives should be achieved as follows: provide access, limit or block exposure, disrupt the digital amplification, discredit the sources. And then, it goes to set out these capabilities should be able to apply to all relevant platforms; and it goes on to say "Legislation will be needed to achieve the above objectives. Such legislation should have the following objectives: measures will need to achieve the objective of breaking virality by being effective in a matter of hours." On the face of it, the recommendation is that the Government should have these powers. The opening words cannot be any clearer. The Government should have the powers.

Second, equally importantly, let us not argue with qualitative words – "Courts can move fast, no reason why they cannot move fast" and so on. Let us stick to the clear recommendation – "matter of hours". You are a lawyer. I have been in practice. Do you think in every case that is necessary, the Court can decide in a matter of hours? You know the process: it would have to be filed, it would have to be served. The defendant may wish to come to Court and say, "I want to argue this" which means due process. How long do you think it will take to get a duty judge? I do not know whether you have tried. But over 22 years, I have tried several times. It can take two days. If the duty judge is in a hearing, it can take up to end of the day. This Select Committee would have been mindful of all of that. It is not possible for you or for me or for anyone else in this House honestly to say that the Courts can do this in a matter of hours. That is just plain wrong. It is not possible.

So, let us stick to the Select Committee's recommendation – "in a matter of hours". Four hours, five hours. What if it is a weekend? You know how long it takes to get a duty judge? When are you going to get a duty judge? When the Courts reopen. Sometimes, you can go to his house and see him. But "matter of hours"? What if he is engaged in something else? He can only give you the time that he can and it is possible that the defendant will turn up. You cannot say all the time that it should be ex-parte. Even in ex-parte, there is such a thing as contested ex-parte. If it is a responsible or respectable party, like a platform, you could say, the platform turns up and says, "No, we want to argue this case". Due process means you must allow them to argue. That means you have to set a hearing date. How long do you think that will take?

In POHA, the process is as follows: we have set up dedicated Courts but we have not pretended that in POHA it can come within a matter of hours. It may not be possible. But private interest, in general, we think they can go and try, but we hope that it can be done in two days; in sufficiently suitable cases, hopefully a day sometimes. But there will be other times when the judges are not available. That is why this Recommendation 12, which is a critical recommendation, says, "The Government should have the powers to swiftly disrupt the spread and influence of online falsehoods". And it says, "It should be done in a way to achieve the objective of breaking virality by being effective in a matter of hours".

If anyone in this House says that you guarantee that a Court will decide every single time, within a matter of hours, when you need it, you are not telling the truth. And I will say so by looking you in the eye. The Courts will tell you that is not possible. So, let us not use words like "Courts can decide quickly". Of course, they can decide quickly. But, as I said to the Nominated Members of Parliament yesterday, what does that mean? These are qualitative words. We are talking about "hours". I have given concrete examples where things happened within a matter of hours.

For private interest, you cannot have any other way other than going to Court. We set up a dedicated set of Courts for the State Courts. We asked them to set up a separate tribunal but that does not mean that an order can be obtained within a matter of hours. We can do the same thing in the High Court but that does not mean that a Court order can be obtained within a matter of hours. You just think in terms of process. There might be times when there is no defendant and you can try and get an ex-parte, sometimes over the phone but, often, there is a platform where these things are carried; and the platform might want to be heard. Facebook, Google or somebody else.

So, I think the Workers' Party should try and clarify without using subjective terms and bringing in POHA which is quite different from POFMA – this Bill – together with the Select Committee's recommendations. Are you walking back on it? Are you saying you no longer stand by it? And if you stand by it, how does your current position make any sense because you accept that is a serious problem? You accept that something has to be done. Government must have these powers. It must be broken within a matter of hours. The only difference that I see between you and us now is who makes that initial call. And your method does not gel with what the recommendation says. So, maybe, I can hear from you.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think a number of points have been made by the Minister. First, it has to do with my position on the Committee and the recommendations per se. I do not think it is an attempt to try and wriggle around the words, "The Government should act swiftly. Legislation should be provided to the Government". POFMA is the legislation that the Government has put forward. I think the issue is really response time. I think that is the key pivot that the Government and the Workers' Party have —

Mr K Shanmugam: And that it says "The Government have the powers to swiftly disrupt" and says "This is the way it should be done."

Mr Pritam Singh: The Select Committee report – we went through several revisions of it. I was part of the team that looked at Recommendation 12 closely. I do not want to share what the deliberations of that small group were because those are confidential and I do not intend to abuse my parliamentary privilege for that purpose, but I have those emails. I do not intend to read from them. But very clearly, my decision to remove the Executive as the decision maker was made quite clear in the original draft. And I think that is the point. The point is, I believe the Select Committee had to put forth an approach on how we are going to deal with the problem, but as to the specific modality, that was something for Parliament to decide.

So, that is dealing with the Select Committee's phraseology and how the issue was put out.

Let me deal with the second set of issues that the Minister spoke about, which was about speed. Certainly, there appears to be two regimes when the Government needs to apply for an interim order to move quickly against either an individual or a company; in this case, let us say a tech company like Facebook. Yes, I would agree that if we came to a tech company I would expect them to challenge what the Government wants to do. But in that sort of situation, the fact is POFMA gives advantage to the Government. The prima facie case is something that the judge can rule upon as a matter of course. That means, the order is given but as to the arguments that have to be dealt with later, these can be dealt with accordingly.

Let me just give an example if the Minister could just bear with me. Targeted Correction order, this is clause 21, Part 4 of the Bill, is issued to the Internet intermediary that provided the Internet intermediary service by means of which the subject material has been or is being communicated in Singapore requiring it to communicate by means of that service to all end users in Singapore. And then, it goes on to say a statement, a specified statement and so forth.

We look at the identical option under POHA, for individual or company, there is a requisite standard to meet for an interim order, which is the prima facie standard. Once that standard is met, let us say by a duty judge, the question of hearing the arguments can be dealt with later. And I think this is the point which suggests to me that there is some scope for the Courts to deal with the urgent issue that the Government wants to resolve, at least in the interim, and then when it comes to the proper hearing the Government can make its case in full and the aggrieved party will have the time to respond.

Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Singh, that does not quite answer the question. On recommendation 12 and whether Executive is mentioned or not, I think we stick to the wordings here because I am also aware of those emails. And I think it is quite clear what recommendation 12 says but I do not want to put you in any sort of embarrassment on that.

Let us just deal with the point on hours. I think it is unarguable, prima facie or whatever, the starting point is for you to file and get an an attendance before a duty judge. You will accept that that is not always possible in a matter of hours. That is the first point I make.

Second point I make is this. If you serve it, and sometimes you will have to, particularly, say you decide to make the platform the defendant. And they turn up, and they say, "No. Before you make a prima facie order, we want to make an argument. We want to be heard". What happens? The Court, are you sure, will each time make a decision within a matter of hours? Assuming you can even get the judge. If the judge is in a hearing for the whole day, you get to see him at the end of the day, if he wants to see you, if he is able to see you. I think it is a simple point, Mr Singh. It is unarguable, is it not, that there will be times? You cannot guarantee that if you go down this route, you will always get it within a matter of hours. Prima facie or otherwise. That is the only point. I mean you are good enough to accept that, I think we can move on.

Mr Pritam Singh: On the first point, Minister, it is no question of an embarrassment for me. I think I am quite clear as to what I think is the appropriate position taken by the Select Committee report. Decision making – it was not explicitly stated which would be the entity and I think I want to leave it at that.

The second point I think is an important one. The first question was in a matter of hours. And I think the Minister makes a fair point in the case of the duty judge. If indeed there is only one person, then it really comes down to a question of whether that should that be increased. Should we have more duty judges? Again, it is an arguable point. The Minister may say look it is going to be quite difficult to execute in practice. I happen to think that, again, depending on how urgent the problem is, how bad the situation is, that can be dealt with.

The second point about service. It is an important point because it deals with issues of natural justice. It is an important point. Again, we look at POHA and interim orders, for example. Clause 16 says: an interim order takes effect in respect of the respondent", and this is an individual or company, "when the order is served on the respondent in such a manner as may be prescribed", but critically, (b) says, "where the Court dispenses with the service of the order, when the service of the order or the respondent is dispensed with by the Court, or at such a later time as the Court may specify". Again, it suggests to me that the regime can be dealt with to deal with the problem of a falsehood provided that prima facie threshold is met. Serious problem. Serious falsehood put out there; and the Court may decide, "Look, I think service is of a second order importance right now, we need to deal with this problem but parties have to come back before me".

Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Singh, I think let us try and get clarity. The first point is not just a question of resources. Judges have cases. It is not as if there is one judge sitting there, doing nothing else but waiting for the Government to come in and apply. There is a duty judge regularly to hear urgent cases. Week after week, the duty judge changes. Sometimes, it carries on. As I told you, there can be weekends, there can be public holidays, there can be other issues.

The simple point is neither you nor I nor anyone else can guarantee that it can be gotten in a matter of hours. I assume you have practised in this area. But if you have not, I will make that point to you.

Second, in terms of service. If it is a known platform and there is an identifiable defendant who is not a rogue party, when you go to the Court and the Court says, "Why have you not served on this party, why are they not before the Court?" What do you say? Okay, let us say we make provisions in urgent matters, we can come and get an interim order in the first place even before service. Assuming we provide for that. Then, what really happens is, each time you just go and get an ex parte order, all that the judge has is what you are giving him. And he confirms that you should get the order. Even then, after you get the order, you are going to break the virality within a matter of hours, as supposed to an immediate order by the Minister?

I think you have an insuperable problem there because of the availability of the judges. And if your point is, each time the Government wishes, it goes ex parte because it is urgent, then how is the Court substantial check other than the fact the Government puts an affidavit, explains it and says, "I think it is urgent" and the Court gives it. But my fundamental point is, are you sure it is done in a matter of hours? Are you standing here as a party and guaranteeing that every time it happens, it will be done within a matter of hours. If you say that, we will just leave it as that; if that is your position.

Mr Pritam Singh: I thank the Minister for that. I think it requires a caveat, of course. A caveat is important and that caveat is that there has to be capacity for a duty judge to be available at that time. That is the caveat.

Mr Speaker: Let us move on.

Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I would like to pose a clarification to the Law Minister. I had intended originally to pose a clarification to Mr Cedric Foo. But I think in light of the Law Minister's comments at this point, I will just pose some clarification to him. It is quite simple. Is it the position of the Law Minister and the Government that our Courts could not be sufficiently resourced, structured, if necessary a new process, a new expedited process created, if necessary a new process for assigning judges created, additional capacity created? Is it impossible? Is it inconceivable that this could be done in the future in order to issue interim prima facie decisions in urgent, time-sensitive cases under POFMA? Is that impossible by definition? By definition is that impossible in the future if we take all these steps to put in the resources to put in the process, if necessary create a special of class of judges, so on, so forth. Is that impossible by definition?

And I would add that in other jurisdictions to the best of my knowledge, and I may stand corrected, in other jurisdictions, for example, in some states in the US, it is my understanding that an arrest warrant has to be approved by a judge under certain circumstances. These arrest warrants are very time-sensitive and the judge has to make a decision on the balance of probabilities, whether to arrest the person. That is a serious matter. Whether to arrest a person in extremely time-sensitive circumstances. Sometimes, late at night the law enforcers will go and see the judge. Because that system has been created and structured and resourced in such a way that it is possible. So, that is my clarification.

Mr K Shanmugam: A number of points here. The first of which is this. Let us take the sequence, the process of these things. First, you got to draft something and file in Court. We are now talking about the Select Committee's recommendation to do something within a matter of hours. You got to draft and file. You got to put aside some time for that. After that, you must find the judge. Let us say in your scenario, we have a High Court Judge who does nothing but sits there 24/7 because it can break out anytime, and will be available as soon as the Government calls. It is technically not impossible. Of course, you can have a Judge who does nothing but this, and no other cases. Because if he is hearing a case, he cannot break the case and come and listen to you. He has to go to finish the case for the sitting, until lunch time or until the evening, depending on the scenario. Duty Judges hear their cases too. So, we are saying, if supposing something has happened and I want to stop the communication within the next two hours, do you think it is possible by going to Court?

Then, there are further factors which have further levels of uncertainty. You file, you go before a Judge and you say, "Look, Judge, it is so urgent that I am not going to serve this on Google, Facebook or whoever, wherever it is spreading. I just need an urgent order, ex parte, and then later on I will serve". Sometimes, the Judge may agree but the Judge may also disagree. Supposing he disagrees, then it takes a further length of time. The decision maker, the person who has the facts might take one view and the responsibility for dealing with that situation also rests with the Executive. Have you not known of instances where within 24 hours, there have been riots and people have been killed? Supposing the Judge says, "I think I would like to hear the other side, urgent as it is". It has happened. Urgent ex parte applications have been heard on a contested basis. Any of these are possible. The Judge could give you ex parte. But he could also ask for contested ex parte. He could ask the other side to turn up quickly. And if he does that, and the other side turns up, and then, they say, "We do not have time to file an affidavit but we want to know the basic facts before we can argue. We need until this evening; we need until tomorrow morning." Once you set up a Court process, then, you must allow for the due process.

So, my point to you, Mr Perera is, having now heard this explanation, is it your position that definitionally, it is possible, every single time, whenever we want it to be dealt with urgently, that it can be dealt with urgently, in a matter of hours? Is that your position?

Mr Speaker: Mr Perera.

Mr Leon Perera: I thank the Law Minister for his explanation. And I think that there are a number of points that he made which relate to judicial capacity, for want of a better term, and process. I would imagine that, based on what the Law Minister has said, he can envisage, that the necessary capacity can be created to deal with such a caseload, based on what Law Minister said.

Mr K Shanmugam: Possible, if the Judge does nothing else but waits for the applications. That was what I said.

Mr Leon Perera: Yes. So, I would take it that necessary capacity can be created. We can create a special class of Courts, duty Judges. Capacity is a question of resource planning. So, with sufficient resources applied, necessary capacity can be created.

Next, there is an issue of process. And I think the Law Minister alluded to the fact that while the Government will have to word the submission, even an ex parte submission to the Court, and that is time consuming, and while this is going on, the clock is ticking away and the falsehood is viralising and so on. But within the Ministry, or the Statutory Board or agency, the civil servants also have to word the submission to the Minister or communicate with the Minister. Can we not create a process whereby the communication, the form and the format of communication between the civil servant and the Minister, is very similar to the form and format of communication between the Government and the Court in those very time-sensitive cases, to obtain an initial prima facie decision?

So, my point there is that I think, at the level of process, a process can be created to minimise the time lag from Ministry to Court. I would put it to the Minister that a process can be created in that way. And I think we have addressed the issue of capacity and we have addressed the issue of process. The Minister has been talking about the current situation, right now, with the capacity we have and the process we have. If we can add more resources and capacity, and we change the process to make it expedited to arrive at that prima facie decision, to stop the viralisation, I would put it to the Law Minister that that is perfectly conceivable.

And I also want to address the other point that the Minister made, that in some cases, the Judge will not agree. That is precisely the point. In some cases, the Judge will not agree. If the Judge feels that he is being asked to make a prima facie decision, but he is looking at it on a balance of probabilities and he feels that the Executive is over-reaching or the Executive is abusing its power, so he may not agree in that case. And that is precisely the value of the check.

Mr K Shanmugam: I would ask Mr Perera not to put words in my mouth. When I said "not agree", it may be because he says, "I want to hear what the other side has got to say". So, my point to Mr Perera is: therefore, we can take it, and it will be very simple, can I take it your position is that, definitionally, every single time it is necessary to make a decision, you believe that the Courts can be used to make a decision to break the virality within a matter of hours; every single time, when it is necessary to do so? Is that your Party's position? Is that your position? If it is yes, yes. If it is no, no. That is all. It will be very good to clarify that.

Mr Leon Perera: If the Courts are sufficiently structured and resourced and the process is defined to enable that to happen, then the answer is yes.

Mr K Shanmugam: And you believe that that can be done by simply putting some submission to the Court? Is that it, whatever the civil servant submits to the Minister, can simply be submitted to the Court?

Mr Leon Perera: What I am saying to the hon Minister is that a simplified process can be created to absolutely minimise the lead time between Minister and Court to get a decision. There is a certain amount of lead time, in any case, for the internal conversation between civil servants and Ministers in such cases. What we are talking about is the additional lead time between the Minister and the Court to get that decision to break the virality. So, I would put it to the Minister that a process can be defined that is very simplified to minimise that lead time.

Mr K Shanmugam: Yes. I have got the clarifications I needed, Sir. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. Mr Leon Perera, your speech.

2.35 pm

Mr Leon Perera: Mr Speaker, Sir, all Members in this House and both the Workers' Party and the People's Action Party agree that fake online news is a danger that modern society must address. We have seen what happens elsewhere when falsehood fans sectarian hatred, swing elections and harmed national security. We need tools to limit the reach of truly dangerous falsehoods spread by malicious actors.

But while we agree on the goal, the Workers' Party and the People's Action Party disagree about the means to achieve that goal. We disagree because we look ahead to the future of this country after this Bill is passed and we see a country where too much power is vested in the hands of any and every Minister. We see a country where free speech debate and thinking could become stifled, especially on the very important matters of public policy and politics on which so much health in national life turns. We disagree because the cure that the PAP Government has placed in front of us could lead to outcomes worse than the disease. As the hon Member Mr Pritam Singh said, section 22 of POFMA defines falsehoods as statements of facts that are false or misleading, not false and misleading. So, a misleading statement can be deemed false by a Minister by virtue of omission of facts.

Sir, in political, intellectual, legal, academic public debate, individuals often present facts that support their arguments and devote less time and space to facts that tend to support the opposite argument. This has been the case for centuries.

Yet, section 2 suggests that a particular collection of facts may be construed as misleading if the "opposite facts" as it were, are not given what the Minister thinks its sufficient weight. The same Minister may not correct statements made by the Government or its supporters that present mainly their facts as it were.

How do we deal with statements like this, for example; "HDB flats are more like rental flats than owned assets since lessees lack strata titles. The HDB controls many of aspects of what you can do with your flat and the value declines over the long-term towards zero dollars at the end of 99 years".

Sir, Minister Lawrence Wong denounced a similar notion as legally and factually wrong. Would such a view be deemed subject to a Correction Order under POFMA?

On the POFMA, a falsehood can be deemed grave enough to warrant correction or penalty for being a misleading collection of facts, even if it does not contain one single false statement of fact. If this wide definition of misleading facts is maintained, the Courts should at least be the first arbiter of truth in respect of formulations such as this one, rather than Ministers who have and will be seen to have their own political interest, a point I will come back to.

Next, section 4 sets out various criteria by which false statements are deemed harmful to the public interest. However, the language lacks any reference to a real risk threshold. In section 4, it would seem that anything that impinges on national security, public health, public finances and so on, in however microscopic or indirect manner, would be upheld as vulnerable to corrections or penalties. The language of section 4 states expedient and necessary. But expedient and necessary for what? To what degree of harm to those things?

Should section 4 not be worded to define public interest with reference to a real risk posed to the things described? In lieu of this, any statement having however minor an impact on the things described, would qualify as correctable. How could meaningful judicial review thus operate? And this is setting aside section 17, Part 5 circumscription of the scope of what has been said will be fast and cheap POFMA High Court appeals to exclude consideration of the degree to which public interest is impacted, a point which my colleague Mr Dennis Tan and which my Party Chairman Ms Sylvia Lim will expand on. This lack of a threshold of significance stretches the risk of abuse of POFMA powers to correct matters which have a very a minor impact on the public interest.

Next, my colleagues have spoken about the chilling effect POFMA may have on free speech. This is not political point-scoring. It is by virtue of this Bill's peculiar cocktail of three things, of section 2, defining what the Minister deems a misleading presentation of facts, not only false claims of facts, as correctable. That is one. Two, section 4F defining harmful falsehoods as including those that diminish confidence in the Government. And thirdly, section 6, which establishes Ministers as the decision makers of truth and falsehoods in the first instance. It is through the combination of these three aspects of POFMA that this Bill is likely to chill free speech and debate about the Government, policies and politics, particularly, expressions of views that run counter to the Government narrative.

Why do I say this? Look ahead to the future. Correction and take-down orders could damage, if not destroy reputations and careers, for journalists, activists, academics, public intellectuals, politicians, professionals of various kinds. In fact, for many, many citizens. If your post becomes subject to such orders, what would your employers think, your lecturers and tutors, your professional colleagues, your friends, your spouse, your business associates, partners and customers? When we bring in the risk of massive fines and lengthy jail time under section 7 for a single offence of "having reason to believe" that one statement is false or harmful as POFMA defines it, which includes undermining confidence in the Government, and with no threshold of significant impact on public interest specified in the law, the risk, Mr Speaker, Sir, is not just a chilling free speech, but of hurling it into an industrial freezer.

By free speech here, I refer particularly to public speech regarding policies and politics that may contain criticisms of the government of the day or the ruling party.

I note in passing that for offshore sponsors of deliberate online falsehoods like state actors or offshore extremists or sectarian groups, it would be difficult, if not, impossible to subject them to these criminal penalties. The burden of these penalties and the fear they generate will fall primarily on domestic actors, on Singaporeans.

Of course, penalties for harmful falsehoods are necessary. I want to be clear about that. But when the penalties are severe and attached to language like that in sections 2 and 4 and with Ministers as the first arbiters of truth, the prospect of chilling public political debate is very real.

What would Singapore look like if most Singaporeans avoid commenting publicly in ways that may be seen as critical of the Government and its narrative? What may take hold is self-censorship and the restriction of online comments in favour of verbal conversations amongst friends or talks held amongst small groups. And the reason for this is clear to see. Many citizens will not have the stomach to risk a Correction order or a criminal charge even if they are confident about their facts as many will not want to take on the effort, time, cost and risk entailed by a legal appeal, let alone a full blown judicial review action. Under POFMA, the burden of proof falls on the person saying something, not the Government for saying that something was false. Many will choose not to take up that burden and simply not speak up.

Next, Sir, section 11 raises a related issue. Its language regarding Correction statements is broad. A correction statement must be worded "in the specified form and manner" specified by the Government. Is there any requirement that Correction statements be as concise, factual, reasonable and non-pejorative as possible? Where is the requirement of proportionality in wording Correction statements?

Next, look ahead to the future. A price we pay for this Bill may be to live in a country where alternative media activists and journalists are afraid to bring certain information to light, possibly information about lapses, abuses, scandals or corruption, because they need to protect people who have shared information confidentially but are too afraid to be named.

In this case, under section 7, potentially, even the expression of public suspicion on the publishing of information from confidential sources by reputable journalists and writers using accepted, investigative and journalistic methodologies, may attract criminal penalties. The POFMA Bill, as it stands, lacks a public interest defence, something the UK is reportedly considering including in its eventual fake news law. There should be a public interest defence whereby a statement that was false, according to the strict standards of POFMA, that is, could have been deemed misleading at the time that it was made, may still not be an offence, or would be a far smaller class of offence carrying smaller penalties if made in good faith using a defensible process and to serve the greater public interest.

Sir, let us look ahead to the post-POFMA future. Will practitioners in the media industry and academia err on the side of caution?

Does that help Singapore's reputation as the global business, R&D and knowledge hub? Will scientists and public health professionals with a different view from the Government on the public health impact of e-cigarettes, for example, hesitate to publish clinical research showing harm reduction to conform smokers for e-cigarettes out of fear, that they may be subject to Correction order because they did not also publish in the same statement facts about how many young first time smokers are taking out e-cigarettes in the US and hence, that research will be deemed a misleading collection of true statements.

As a result, will they refrain from publishing such facts due to the personal consequences they will have to face? How does the impoverishment of policy debate that may ensue from that help the formation of good policies? How do we mitigate the risks that the academics and the media may come to see a need to soft launch their ideas before publication with Government officers to minimise the risk of POFMA action? Or worse yet, simply self-censor or water down outputs that disagree with the Government's narrative and hence may be deemed to undermined confidence in the Government under section 4.

Next, let us look ahead to the future post-POFMA in respect of politics. Singapore will be a country where any Minister can determine in the first instance what is truth and false – in the first instance. Post-POFMA, ours will be a country where Ministers with the political interest they are seen to have, can correct statements they deem misleading. But the very same Ministers will not be subject to the stringent, immediate and broad strictures of the POFMA law. Ministers and Government spokespersons can say what they want including misleading statements with a partisan political character.

What is the restraint on the Government here? Can victims of possible Government falsehoods go to the POHA Courts? Evidently, not. They can sue for defamation, but again, how many would do that? Would defamation apply to statements made by Ministries and agencies as opposed to Ministers? How long would that take? What if a falsehood perpetrated by a government affects the outcome of an election? Would a positive defamation verdict for a victim of government fake news after the election is help?

Section 4F describes diminution of confidence in the Government as one definition for falsehood being harmful to the public interest, a feature of this law that is different from most similar fake news laws or draft laws in other countries. Is vesting powers this broad in the Government of the day, from now to when this law is repealed, if ever that day comes, the responsible thing to do for future generations of Singaporeans?

What if a rouge government uses these powers to stifle criticism, block the circulation of embarrassing information about lapses, abuses or corruption, perpetuate fear and entrench itself in power? What if such a rouge government exploited the reluctance of many Singaporeans to sue the Singapore Government in Court to its advantage? What if such a government exploited the lack of a public interest defence to suppress genuine and responsible investigative journalism.

Do we serve future generations of Singaporeans by passing such a law and passing into the hands of the government of the day, such a powerful weapon not knowing how it might be used?

When asked about the possibility of a future rogue government abusing POFMA, the Law Minister said and I quote, "I cannot vouch for how a future government will act." Some would say, and the Law Minister also said in the same interview, I am not taking it out of context, that a rogue government or a Minister who abuses their POFMA powers will be held to account in elections. A number of PAP Members of this House have made a great deal of this point.

But Mr Speaker, Sir, this ignores the fact that a rogue government can precisely use POFMA powers to stop voters from learning negative information about their actions which could be a factor in those very elections. The powers can be used to partly insulate against electoral accountability. To say Parliament is a check against abuse is neither here nor there. The abuse may affect the composition of the Parliament itself.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this argument is, to a large extent, circular.

Some might say that chilling free speech a little is the right price to pay for preventing foreign powers, extremist and opportunist from destroying our communal harmony or even our independence as a country. Sir, we recognise the need for a surgical tool to fight fake news, which is why my Party Leader, Mr Pritam Singh, argued for an alternative regime, a regime with a broad definitions and powers in POFMA are curtailed by virtue of the Government requiring Judges to approve Correction Orders at the point of implementation, which is closer to one aspect of the model being debated and implemented in France. Resources can be provided to ensure that duty Judges provide fast, prima facie decisions in time-sensitive cases. The Court should be the first arbiter and not the final arbiter. Sir, in Malay, please.

( In Malay ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This Bill may reduce the reporting of information seen to be critical of the Government. It can also be misused by an irresponsible government, if Ministers who may be seen to have their own political agenda issue correction directions that are written in a way that will embarrass their critics, or they may even commence actions to take down the news that was published as well as stop the circulation of information that can embarrass the Government.

Sir, under this law, the Government decides whether a particular item of news is considered to be false or otherwise, and it is the responsibility of the person who issued the statement to prove that it is not false, and this must be done in Court.

The Workers' Party requests for a fake news law that places the responsibility of proving falsehoods on the Government, and not the person who issued the statement. The Courts must be the first arbiter in making the decision, and the Ministers should not be given dangerous powers, such as those stated in this Bill; powers that can be misused by an irresponsible government to retain their power.

Sir, we in the Workers' Party do not oppose for the sake of opposing. But we oppose when we see something that does not support elements of the national interest like this Bill.

(In English): And in conclusion, Sir, purging destructive falsehoods from the public square is the right thing to do. But this Bill is a cure worse than the disease. When we look ahead post-POFMA, we see a country where only the rich and brave may dare to speak up. In time, the chill on free political speech may also affect our young people in our schools and higher education institutes. Will they come to self-censor their thoughts and their expressions to align with the Government's narrative? Will they internalise the fear of not diminishing confidence in the Government as section 4F of POFMA details? What will this mean for Singaporeans becoming independent thinkers who can navigate a world of disruption? Bear in mind what the hon Member Prof Lim Sun Sun said about how, among the general public, people are now using POFMA as a verb, "I will POFMA you".

Sir, the problem of fake news needs a surgical tool welded by objective, non-conflicted surgeons to strike at the diseased organ and not the healthy limbs. But this Bill is not a carefully crafted tool, it is a blunt weapon, handed to a conflicted surgeon, able to cause a great deal of collateral damage to the democratic body politik in this country. The Bill as it stands, needs a radical overhaul, not just minor tweaks. We do not oppose for the sake of opposing. But we do oppose when it is right for Singapore and this is one such time. Thank you, Sir.

2.55 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, with the prevalent use of the Internet and social media, massive amounts of information are being shared online, particularly among the young. On one hand, the free flow of information is a form of knowledge democracy; on the other hand, due to the low or non-existent barrier to online participation, falsehoods and misinformation are pervasive. The online space has remained unregulated for a long time. Cases of how the Internet has been manipulated to gain profit, cause racial and religious disputes, incite harm and cast doubts on public institutions abound.

The consequences for us as a nation would be dire if we leave such a situation unchecked. We will have difficulty telling the truth from online falsehoods, affecting our ability to make informed choices and decisions. We have already seen how online abuse and misinformation had led to injuries and deaths in other countries, spurring them to take action.

Global sentiment is shifting as governments around the world now realise that regulation of the Internet space is needed. Germany had enacted the Network Enforcement Act which took effect this year. France passed the Law Against the Manipulation of Information last November. The United Kingdom is now holding an open public consultation on the Online Harms White Paper that sets out the government’s plans for measures to keep users safe online. We, too, need urgent and comprehensive measures to address the menace of online falsehoods and manipulation.

Even tech companies now acknowledge that there is room for greater government intervention as they cannot be dealing with these problems themselves. I am very concerned about the impact of online falsehoods and fake analyses on our young. We must teach them how to discern truth from lies, how to analyse information they read online and how to think critically. Values are ingrained in people from a very young age. Hence, from young, we must teach them fundamental values which transcend religious and racial differences, such as mutual respect and tolerance, integrity, justice and fairness, kindness and empathy. If they are taught well, they will be inoculated against anything which violates basic human rights and values.

For parents, they will have to develop media literacy themselves and be able to discern facts from online falsehoods, so that they can have meaningful conversations with their children. These conversations have to be consistent and on-going. Dialogues must remain open between children and parents, so that our younger generation can be groomed into a people who can think critically and independently.

Our education system must be constantly updated in methods to teach the younger generation media literacy in a fast evolving sector and equip them with the necessary skills. I am pleased to note that research-based assignments are very common in schools now. Teachers can engage students through these projects to examine various sources of information. Students learn how to determine which sources are credible and which are not. They are exposed to questions and frameworks where they can apply themselves and determine in each case, if information is true or false. In this sense, our education system is forward-looking in preparing our young for the future.

There is also a need to enhance digital literacy for the elderly as they may be a vulnerable group that is susceptible to fake news. Unlike the young, they may be less familiar with technology and the dangers that are lurking in the online space. I understand that the Government has introduced some programmes and initiatives, such as the Silver InfoComm. IMDA has developed a set of customised curriculum to increase infocomm literacy among seniors aged 50 and above. Silver Infocomm Junctions are senior-friendly learning hubs that offer affordable infocomm training and customized courses. These are encouraging steps forward to enhance digital literacy among senior citizens.

The Bill provides measures to mitigate the impact and harm caused by online falsehoods. It would be better if the abuse of these platforms can be prevented in the first place. I therefore welcome the upstream regulation of technology companies through the inclusion of Codes of Practice, which will go a long way to ensure a clean online space. I sincerely hope that tech companies will cooperate and work closely with our Government so that Singaporeans will feel safe and have greater confidence when using their services. I would like to ask the Minister what is the process for developing the obligations in the Codes of Practice? Will stakeholders be consulted on how the obligations should be framed? Sir, in Mandarin, please.

( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Bill provides measures to mitigate the impact and harm caused by online falsehoods. It would be better if the abuse of these platforms can be prevented in the first place. I, therefore, welcome the upstream regulation of technology companies through the inclusion of Codes of Practice, which will go a long way to ensure a clean online space. I sincerely hope that tech companies will cooperate and work closely with our Government so that Singaporeans will feel safe and have greater confidence when using their services. I would like to ask the Minister what is the process for developing the obligations in the Codes of Practice? Will stakeholders be consulted on how the obligations should be framed?

( In English ): In conclusion, we need continuous efforts to keep our Internet space safe for all Singaporeans and I am confident that the Government will continue to do more to educate our young and the elderly on the dangers of fake news and what they can do to protect themselves and their loved ones. I support the Bill.

3.02 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Yesterday, I listened to the speech of the hon Mr Low Thia Khiang. He accepts that online fake news brings harm to the society and must be curbed.

He also accepts that the Court can act as an arbiter of fake news, although he is of the opinion that it should be decided by the Court instead of the Minister. Despite the differences, they are the same. Because the Court has the final ruling.

The focus of today's Bill is on information falsifiers who disseminate false information online with the intention of causing harm, rather than the responsible and constructive network users.

It has been said that good people will gravitate towards doing good and the bad towards evil. Most people have a natural understanding of fairness and justice. Although Mr Low’s worries can be understood, he does not need to worry too much unnecessarily.

Each of us has received interesting information forwarded by friends. I also often remind myself that for the information which is questionable and cannot be verified, when forwarding, I also alert the other party that the information may be false and cannot be substantiated. Everyone can develop this habit, so that they can have better peace of mind.

Although the Ministers have the power to make a clarification or take down a post, they are not likely to abuse this power and make decisions that violate their credibility and abandon the public’s trust. At the same time, we will allow freedom of speech to flourish, and it can also enhance the credibility of the network platforms and maintain users' confidence in the platforms.

I want to remind everyone that everyone could be a victim of fake news. Do not forget that users on some popular online platforms do not need real-name registration. In other words, some people can open up thousands or even tens of thousands of fake accounts, men pretending to be women, women pretending to be men, elderly pretending to be young and young pretending to be elderly.

This is also why online fraud cases are constantly emerging. I had encountered a resident asking for help. His relatives’ child, impersonating the mother, set up an account to vilify the religious beliefs of others and provoke hatred.

Recently, the US also has to legislate to control fake news, especially deepfake technology that allows people to combine images. By attaching former US President Obama's face to another person and then making a false statement, it is possible to mislead the audience to think that Obama is speaking. If those with bad intentions can send out false information using such technology to impersonate the US president or the presidents of other countries about launching a nuclear bomb to a certain country, the consequences would be unimaginable.

I think these platforms should use real-name registration systems to allow netizens to register accounts for effective control. As the saying goes, upright people with nothing to hide do not do things secretly, so we should encourage a constructive and responsible platform for free speech, instead of using these platforms to put other people down and create social unrest under the banner of freedom of expression.

We are all familiar with the traditional game "pass the message". In the process, it is not difficult to find out that when the message reaches the last person, the original text from the first person has been distorted. It is not hard to find that some people, in order to add emphasis and persuade others, add bits and pieces to the message, and a real message could become a false message. I have a suggestion here. If you cannot determine the authenticity of the information, you can attach a disclaimer clause to remind the other party that you cannot research or verify the information, so that the other party can also be vigilant.

( In English ): Mr Speaker, Sir, the introduction of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill as another crucial step to fortify our financial and economic stability.

As we all know, financial systems are particularly sensitive to market rumours and online falsehoods. This vulnerability can have devastating consequences for individuals, for companies and for our entire economy. There is a need to act quickly and decisively to protect our financial system.

Allow me to share a couple of examples. In June 2017, a false post on 4Chan claimed that the founder of cryptocurrency had died in a car crash. The post led to a crash in the price of Ethereum and US$4 billion was wiped out in just five hours. To prove that it was all fake news, Buterin had to copy some data linked to the latest block mined on the Ethereum blockchain on a piece of paper, took a selfie with it and post this photo on Twitter.

During the Financial Crisis in 2007 to 2008, there were rumours that the Bank of East Asia was in financial trouble, leading to thousands of panicked depositors queuing outside the bank's branches to withdraw their savings. Regardless of the actual financial health of a bank, in the event of a bank run, when a large number of customers withdraw their deposits simultaneously, even a healthy bank could become insolvent. In turn, its collapse could potentially lead to other bank runs, and like a fast-spreading virus, soon cripple an entire financial eco-system.

Singapore’s financial markets are certainly not immune to such incidents. Thus, any measures to counter falsehoods must be fast and decisive. Otherwise, opportunistic actors will be able to use falsehoods to cause panic, create instability and erode confidence in our financial infrastructure. Any delay may ultimately cause severe harm to ordinary Singaporeans, some of whom may see their life savings wiped out in a matter of hours.

Hence, I do not support measures which will hamper the ability of our Ministers to react quickly to clamp down on online falsehoods. Some have argued that applications to remove articles or news should be first made to a court or independent party. Enormous damage, some of which may be irreversible, would have occurred over those precious hours and days of delay – damage which the perpetrators do not have to be responsible for. The onus should be on the parties making claims online to present the facts and evidence to support their assertions instead. Hence, I think we should consider allowing class action suits brought against service providers by the victims themselves harmed by tech companies which fail to rectify or take down fake news.

Of course, there is another angle which we should consider. While falsehoods by malicious actors can have a serious impact on the financial markets, is it possible that a mistaken exercise of the powers under this Bill may also have a serious impact on the financial markets? Would the Minister share how the Government will mitigate the risk of making such mistakes? I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Dr Intan.

3.12 pm

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I have a clarification.

Mr Speaker: Yes, Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: I heard Member Mr Gan saying something in Mandarin about what I said is similar to what is provided in the Bill – 异曲同工，我听不清楚，你可以再说一遍吗？I am not clear what he said about different views but the same objective.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh: Because, ultimately, the Court will still be the one that can decide. Even though it is a matter of sequence as what you pointed out. I know the Workers' Party's argument is that you would prefer the Court to decide. But do not forget, the Minister's decision still can be challenged; anyone can still go to Court and challenge.

Mr Speaker: Mr Low.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: In Mandarin, Sir.

( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] So, Member Mr Gan meant to say that although the Minister has the decision-making power under this Bill, you can still go to Court to challenge the decision. But the Workers' Party believes that if there are any complaints, the Minister should lodge a complaint with the Courts and let the Courts decide. Do you believe that the two approaches achieve the same objective? No, it is not achieving the same objective. Let me explain why.

Under the Bill, the Minister decides what is falsehood and what action to take. If the affected party disagrees, he can go to Court to appeal and let the Court decide. But this is like executing someone first and then allowing him to appeal later. The person would have been executed already, what is the point of making an appeal when he is already dead?

Mr Gan Thiam Poh: ( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Let us not forget that this is falsehood. When the Minister issues a take-down order, he will explain his action. If you disagree, you can go to the Courts and let the Court decides.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] First and foremost, you must follow the Minister's decision to take down the message, you cannot go to Court. According to this Bill, you must comply with the Minister's order. Otherwise, you will be charged. It is different from the situation where the Minister goes to Court first and requests for the information to be taken down, and you are given a chance to state your reasons and defend yourself in Court. Under this Bill, there is no room for you to defend your case. You must first obey the Minister’s order, then go to Court. So, it is like executing first and appealing later.

Mr Speaker: Are there any new points to be made, if not, we move on.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh: ( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I think it is not possible for the Minister to go against public opinion and risk his credibility by doing this. If you think that you are right, you can still lodge an appeal.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] You assume that the Minister will not do this, but is your assumption correct? It may be correct now, but will it be correct in the future? Even the Minister cannot guarantee that, he said he cannot be sure that future governments will not abuse their power. Can you be sure?

Mr Speaker: Dr Intan.

3.15 pm

Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Bill.It is a timely and important Bill that has garnered much interest and debate both in and outside of this Chamber. I understand the need for the POFM Act and in essence, I support this Bill. Please allow me to first speak in Malay on the Bill.

( In Malay ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the need for proper public education on the impact of fake news and falsehoods from online sources cannot be understated. With easy access to online information sources, we may not always be able to distinguish between information that is true and accurate and that which is not.

Although some may argue that this Bill will limit freedom of expression and access to information, not having this Bill will also curtail certain liberties, such as personal freedom or the right to a fair trial, such as when one has been wrongly accused and judged unfairly in the court of public opinion, and having many people who often exaggerate the actual situation.

Hence, comprehensive and continual public education is necessary, including the education of our young, starting at home and in schools. The need for our people and for our young to be media and information literate is all the more important.

Hence, I support current initiatives to do so, such as the National Library Board's SURE (Source, Understand, Research, Evaluate) Programme, the MDA's Silver Infocomm Junctions and the National Information and Media Literacy Framework by the Ministry of Communications and Information.

I did my doctorate research in information and media literacy, and I completed my work more than a decade ago. I look forward to contributing my experience in this area as a Member of MCI’s Digital Readiness Council Steering Committee.

Mr Speaker, please allow me to continue in English.

(In English) : Mr Speaker, while I will not speak on specific clauses of this Bill, I wish to speak on the Bill in general in my capacity as an academic and faculty member in one of our local Autonomous Universities.

Substantial discussions have been made in the academic circle on the impact of this Bill, once enacted, on academic freedom.

If I may loosely quote the definition of Academic Freedom from Brittanica: "Academic freedom, is the freedom of teachers and students to teach, study, and pursue knowledge and research, and without unreasonable interference or restriction from current laws, institutional regulations, or public pressure."

Academic freedom is highly valued by academics because it allows us to carry out our research work, ask questions, collect relevant data, write and share our opinions, and critique freely and openly, without fear or favour. It is essentially the lifeblood of academia and research work.

Hence, I fully understand the concerns among my fellow academics on the impact of the POFMA on academic freedom.

There have been, and will continue to be, instances where the work or paper we publish may contain some "statements of facts" which may be deemed to be false, and which may contradict data available or shared by Government Ministries or agencies.

Let me illustrate with an example – the issue of discrimination – whether in schools, the workplace or in Public Services.

Current data by Government Ministries, such as MOE or MOM, may show that there is little to no incidents of discrimination in schools or workplaces. Even if there are, swift and decisive actions are taken to quell such instances of discrimination and allow current laws to deal with the perpetrators. The numbers may be small and the incidents may appear well under control. However, we must recognise that these numbers are only based on those reported. There are incidents and instances that go unreported. Hence, the data available may not always reflect what is real and what is experienced.

Research studies conducted by academics, that deep dive into the psyches and experiences of individuals – not just through quantitative data or quantifiable information – but through rich qualitative data, such as engaged interviews and discussions, observations, ethnography, phenomenological approaches or through the use of grounded theories – have usually revealed much more than what quantitative data collection methods are able to show.

There are times where these much richer qualitative data may counter or even dispute quantitative data that is much more easily and quickly reported or captured, but which only scratch the surface of most people’s psyches or experiences when it comes to complex issues such as discrimination, for example.

As a result, these academics or researchers who then publish their work and qualitative data which may counter or dispute the data owned and shared by Government Ministries or agencies – do we then conclude these academics or researchers as having published "false statements of facts" because they do not support the data or facts owned and shared by the Government Ministries or agencies?

Illustrating yet another example – we may have an academic or researcher who publish their work where because of the research methods employed or because of the statistical modelling tools applied, the data generated may not be the same as that owned or shared by the Government Ministries or agencies – do we then also conclude these academics or researchers have published "false statements of facts"?

To what extent will POFMA allow academic freedom to continue to exist?

Having argued for academic freedom, I must also put forth the following argument. That Academic freedom cannot exist without academic integrity.

What is academic integrity? It is essentially the moral code or ethical policy of academia – a term coined by Don McCabe. Academic integrity includes the avoidance of cheating or plagiarism; ensuring honesty and rigour in academic research and publishing.

This means that the work we publish must be based on data that has been honestly and rigorously collected without tampering for any specific agendas or purposes.

And in upholding academic integrity, we academics and researchers need to ensure that we do not propagate false information. To elaborate, there is a need to ensure we do not propagate disinformation or misinformation – both referring to false information.

Disinformation is known false information that is deliberately spread or propagated so as to deceive others.

Misinformation, on the other hand, is a little bit more difficult to determine. While misinformation also propagates false news or information, often times, people who propagate misinformation may not always realise the news or information is false, hence the propagation of false information may not always be deliberate – just misinformed.

Hence, there may be instances where false information is propagated without the deliberate intent to stir controversy or prejudice public opinion.

Here if I may address the point raised by the hon Member Leon Perera. Many academics that I know are not worried about the curtailment of academic freedom from this Bill. We are confident that as long as you practise academic integrity and are able to support our academic or research arguments with data, we will still have academic freedom to carry on our academic research work and still publish our work. I believe this Bill is not a life sentence for academics.

Nonetheless, in light of the above arguments, may I seek Minister’s assurance, for the record, that academics and researchers can continue to enjoy academic freedom as long as they demonstrate academic integrity in our work or publications, and that we will not always need to make appeals for our work that may discuss data or information that may run counter or even dispute facts or data owned or shared by Government Ministries or agencies?

In addition, may I suggest that an Academic and Research Advisory Panel be set up to review academic or research work or publications that may be deemed to publish "false statements of facts". This may be similar to the Singapore Medical Council that reviews medical practices and practitioners. The purpose of the Academic and Research Advisory Panel is to have oversight and decide on academic or research work or publications that would otherwise need to be put up as appeals to the Courts. Hence, long-drawn court appeals that may result in high costs or extended appeal durations, can be avoided.

While I understand that academic and research work and publications can traverse a wide array of disciplines, the Academic and Research Advisory Panel is meant to provide general oversight and counsel on matters related to academia or research work and publications.

Specific Subject Matter Expert Committees can be convened to preside over academic or research work or publications in specific areas or disciplines. I also do understand that having the proposed Academic and Research Advisory Panel which provides general oversight and counsel on matters related to academic or research work or publications or even this Specific Subject Matter Expert Committees to preside over academic or research work or publications in specific disciplines may both require much time for deliberation and review and which may be an expense to speed and efficiency compared to a directive decided by the Minister. However, efficiency and speed alone should not be our only goal. There must also be vigour and objectivity.

Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the concerns and suggestions I have raised, I support the Bill.

3.25 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party is not denying the problem of misinformation nor that there is a real risk of the public being misled, especially in the digital age. The concerns ranged from the creation of bots to spread disinformation, profiting from knowingly spreading falsehoods and possible interference in elections by external state's sponsored actors.

That said, the Bill before the House to tackle online falsehoods has generated alarm and strong concern. My Party's colleagues before me argued some of the key objections of the Workers' Party that compelled us to reject the Bill.

One such key objection is that the Bill entrusts the job of gate-keeping truths to ministers and their alternate authorities while part of the Executive Government and would be making certain decisions as interested persons rather than neutral arbiters.

During a constituency event over the weekend, some residents expressed to me that when POFMA is passed, they would likely be very, very careful about what they posed online and about private messages they send through their phones. Thus, when I saw The Straits Times opinion piece of Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong on 6 May, I was struck by the headline which read "that only a small group was crying wolf". I know that his intention in writing that piece was specifically to respond to the Asia Internet Coalition. But as he himself explained yesterday, the Bill before the House is platform neutral and will apply to communications on closed platforms such as messaging groups. Anyone who uses a mobile phone can fall foul of the Bill.

Some Nominated Members have proposed amendments to the Bill in Committee. The amendments seem to accept the powers being given to Ministers to be the arbiters of truth and public interest but attempt to scope them. The amendments also asked for more transparency and for an independent advisory council. While I appreciate their intention and efforts to try to mitigate the dangers of the Bill, the Workers' Party's objections are more fundamental and require us to reject the Bill.

For my part, I will focus my speech on the following concerns: one, the limited role of the courts under POFMA; and two, why POFMA may endanger the national interest.

First, limited role of the Courts. The Workers' Party Secretary-General Member of Parliament Pritam Singh had earlier set out why the Party believes that the POFMA powers to issue directions should be vested in the Courts rather than Ministers. The Government on its part has been stressing that Ministers are circumscribed by an appeals process and judicial oversight. It is important to examine the details of this.

First, let us look at appeals. Appeals are basically requests to re-look at the original decision on the merits to decide if the decision was right or wrong. Under what circumstances can appeals be made to the High Court?

The Bill has restricted the grounds of appeals against minister's directions. Under clause 17(5), for example, it is provided that the High Court may only set aside a Part 3 Direction on any of the following grounds on an appeal: (a) that the person did not communicate in Singapore the subject statement; (b) that the subject statement is not a statement or is a true statement of fact; or (c) that it is not technically possible to comply with the direction. These are the only three grounds on which the High Court can set aside the Minister's Directions.

The burden of proof falls to the individuals the proof that his statement was true. This is potentially very onerous due to information asymmetry between the Government and individuals, a point that I shall return to later.

The appeal to the Courts is thus very tightly scoped. The High Court cannot inquire into the merits of the decision whether in the court's view the decision should have been made in that way. On an appeal, the Court, for example, cannot ask important questions such as: (a) Is the Minister over-reacting? (b) Did the direction impose obligations on the communicator which are excessively onerous or harsh? (c) Does the public interest require the Direction to be issued?

Sir, the Government has argued that the Courts can look in fact into proportionality and into the question of public interest. The argument as I understand it is that these matters can be looked into under the usual judicial review route. So, let us look at judicial review.

I agree that POFMA does not carry a clause ousting judicial review of Ministers' decisions, so judicial review exists. But what does judicial review mean?

First, judicial review is a public law remedy which requires the individual to take up a separate legal action against the Government usually by suing the Attorney-General as the Government representative. In order to do this, the person must first apply for leave of permission from the Court to commence a judicial review. If leave is obtained, the judicial review application can then be filed. These steps will take time. Two sets of legal costs will thus be incurred. The litigant will also be facing the formidable Attorney-General's Chambers with limitless resources to defend the Government. There was no mention by the Minister yesterday that the judicial review process will be made simpler or cheaper.

Secondly, in a judicial review, the Court is not looking into whether the Minister's decision is right or wrong. The purpose of judicial review is to determine if the Minister's decision is legal and rational. Therefore, if a Minister assert that a Correction Direction is needed in the public interest, the Court cannot delve into the evidence to weight up whether the direction should be issued or not. So long as the Minister's reasons are in line with the purpose of the Act, the Court will generally not interfere. Judicial review is thus a difficult proceeding to mount and to win.

Looking into the totality then, it is my assessment that the powers of judicial oversight of Ministers' powers under POFMA are severely limited.

Next, why POFMA may endanger national interest? Sir, the Government should not assume that Singaporeans who criticise or query are malicious. Criticisms and queries may well arise out of genuine concern and provide opportunities for detailed and measured responses.

If we wish to imbue citizens with the real sense of ownership, we should focus on empowering minds and hearts with knowledge. This knowledge should not just come when falsehoods emerge, but on an ongoing basis.

The Government has confirmed that it agrees that arming citizens with knowledge is a powerful weapon against falsehoods. To this end, the Government should do some introspection as to how it may itself have contributed to the spread of falsehoods by its control of information.

One past episode on how incomplete information may lead to erroneous conclusions happened 15 years ago. Two economists were rebuked by the Government for putting up job figures suggesting that the majority of new jobs were taken up by foreigners in the previous five years. This was strongly refuted by the Government which then released statistics previously not disclosed showing that in fact for every 10 jobs created, nine went to residents.

The two economists were labelled as irresponsible and unprofessional. In their defence, they said that they had taken the initial figures from MOM website while the newly released figures were information they had no access to. If the same had occurred after POFMA was enacted, would the professors be required to tag corrections to their reports online? How would the professionals standing thereby be diminished in the eyes of their colleagues, students and the world at large? 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.

Sir, the Government had been trying hard to convince the public that fears about the Bill having a chilling effect on the freedom of speech are unfounded. How convincing is this?

The Bill is not only targeted at deliberate falsehoods, but at all statements the Government deems false, even if innocently communicated. Under clauses 11(4) and 12(4), it is stated that Correction Directions may be issued by the Minister or the alternate authority even if the person who communicated the statement did not know or had no reason to believe that the statement is false.

The Minister or the alternate may even require the Correction notice to be published in print form – in a specified newspaper which cost will have to be borne by the person concerned. As it would up to the Minister or the alternate to specify the size of the correction notice, the person will have to buy the required space from the newspapers which could easily run into thousands of dollars.

The Government says that it is giving assurances in the Parliament that would be recorded in Hansard and other controls will be enacted in subsidiary legislation. As POFMA is a law that potentially catches all Singaporeans who use digital communication, the Government should make the law as clear and as accessible as possible. Is it reasonable to expect an ordinary citizen who wants to understand POFMA to have to cross refer from the Act to subsidiary legislation, and then to the parliamentary debates as well?

Finally, Sir, before I end, I would like to address briefly the issue that was debated earlier about having the Courts as the first arbiter and the issue of speed.

Earlier, there was discussion about whether the Court could respond quickly enough in certain situations. As debated by my party colleagues earlier, we believe that this is a matter of how the Courts are resourced and how the processes are streamlined. So, we believe that it is possible if there is political will to do so.

Secondly, the Government is a very powerful Government with a lot of resources. If the Government wishes to correct any statement that is floating online, it does not have to wait for POFMA. It has many channels of communication at its disposal through the mass media, through its own Internet channels – I think more than sufficient to get its information out, to combat the effects of any falsehood as it deems it, even if it has to wait for POFMA adjudication.

And finally, Sir, at the outset of this debate, I think the Minister made clear that he or the Government already has very vast powers under other laws, and POFMA is a voluntary scoping down of Government's powers.

So, Sir, in totality, I do not believe that the Government would be helpless if POFMA requires the Courts to be the first arbiter in this respect.

Sir, finally, to conclude, we have grave objections to POFMA and the damage it would do to Singaporeans who wish to debate and discuss current affairs and topics of national importance. POFMA is lopsided and gives the Ministers too much power in matters where they may be interested parties. We opposed the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sim Ann.

3.37 pm

Ms Sim Ann (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Speaker, Sir, I have listened to the debate between Members Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Low Thia Khiang, and Mr Low used an analogy that seemed a little violent, so I would like to clarify.

I believe that under this Bill, the Minister is actually "merely reporting" and not "beheading". Why do I say that? In most cases, the Minister's role is to inform the public that a falsehood has been put out and to issue directions for correction, while the original post can be retained. Hence, there is no cause for claiming that "beheading" has occurred.

The Workers' Party suggests that the Minister should lodge an application with the Court and let the Court decide. But the Minister has explained that online falsehoods can spread very quickly. If the Court is the first arbiter, then it is akin to using water far away to put out a fire nearby. This is precisely what today’s debate is about; we do not want slow remedies.

3.39 pm

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] With regard to the issue of "using water far away to put out a fire nearby", during the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister has said that there are already many existing laws and powers that the Government can utilise and this Bill is only a small part. Therefore, using "water" near or far away is not an issue. The Government already has measures on hand and is able to take action immediately when a falsehood surfaces.

As to whether the punishment can be considered as an "execution", my answer is "yes, it is an execution". Why? Because the Minister can decide which action to take. The Workers' Party Chairman spoke on this just a while ago. For example, for the two economists involved in a previous case, they were badly affected. If you lodge an appeal with the Courts after being ordered by the Minister to clarify on the website, it is like complaining to the Courts after you have been executed. What is the point of appealing? You would have been "executed" already. This is why we believe that one should not be punished first. Instead, the case should be brought to Court first, and be decided by the judge. This is the correct way.

3.41 pm

Mr Speaker: Sim Ann.

Ms Sim Ann: Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I think we have now come to a very important theme of the debate. I believe there is some confusion over the scale of the issue. I think Members from the Workers' Party have tried their best to conflate the impact of falsehoods with the impact of personal opinion when they are entirely different. The Select Committee Report has pointed out that the effects of online falsehood can come thick and fast and are far-reaching. This is why I used the analogy of "using water far away to put out a fire nearby". In the event where society and security are seriously affected by the proliferation of falsehoods, how can it be that we should still seek "water from far away" to put out this "fire" raging nearby?

3.42 pm

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, clarification in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I have stated clearly that the Government already has a lot of power under existing legislation. They can even shut down websites. The Minister also provided a list in his opening speech that stated clearly the legislation the Government has at its disposal to stop the propagation of online falsehoods. He said that POFMA is a relatively small weapon and there are other stronger weapons on hand. Even if there is an urgent problem, the Government has other powers. So, the scale of the problem does not matter, as the Government already has weapons on hand to stop the propagation of online falsehoods.

3.43 pm

Mr Speaker: Ms Sim Ann.

Ms Sim Ann: Mr Speaker, in Mandarin again.

( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Speaker, Sir, I think this debate has become more bizarre. The Workers' Party seems to believe that the Government has some kind of weapon to tackle the problem of falsehoods, weapons that even the most advanced governments and countries of the world do not have. I believe that Mr Low may not have looked at the Select Committee Report in detail. The problem of online falsehoods is a global one which has left many countries at a loss about what to do. If you say the current Government already possesses tools to stop the proliferation of fake news immediately, does it not mean that this debate has been totally meaningless?

3.44 pm

Mr Speaker: Mr Low.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: In Mandarin, Sir.

( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Our Secretary-General is in the Committee. He told us about the contents of the Committee's discussion, so we know what was discussed in the Committee.

With regard to the question of timing, based on existing legislation, the Government has the authority to shut down websites, including Facebook, but that would mean the Prime Minister would lose 1.2 million followers. This means that you can take measures if the situation is very urgent, even without POFMA.

Mr Speaker: Unless there are any fresh perspectives, I would suggest you move on. Ms Sim Ann.

Ms Sim Ann: ( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I believe that Mr Low has just undermined his own argument.

You claim to have understood the Report very well, but whether you have understood it or distorted it will become clear. We still have plenty of opportunity and I believe the issue will become obvious as the debate continues.

3.45 pm

The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this legislation that will help enhance Singapore's safety, national and public interests.

Much has already been said about this Bill in the public domain and in this House by my colleagues. Thus, allow me to frame my speech into three parts: (a) What is the most important aspect of this Bill; (b) Why is it important for Singapore? (c) Can the new regulations create a more informed and discerning society?

To me, the most important feature of the Bill is its ability to give the public access and visibility to the corrections, because then the public decides, comparing the original and the correction, on what is to be believed. This reflects the Singapore Government's trust in the electorate to decide, and it is also a recognition of how our society has matured.

Countries around the world have either implemented some form of legislation or are exploring it to tackle fake news. Not only because of the risks of falsehoods and its spread. But also because tech and new media companies that are used as platforms to viral these fake news are either incapable of or unwilling to solve the entirety of the problem leading to market failure in the form of a negative externality. Most agreed that policy intervention is necessary to correct this failure and reduce the cost of this externality.

For Singapore, this is very important because of how open we are as a society and country. And also, because the very levers of attack that these online falsehoods tend to target are the pillars of our society. Allow me to elaborate.

At the crux of the problem is the nature and intent of fake news. It is designed to cause divisions and distrust in society. And the best ways to divide societies are to deepen the natural fault lines of race, religion, political ideologies and xenophobia by feeding into people's fears or insecurities thereby fuelling panic and hysteria. To that extent it is not dissimilar from terrorism. Terrorism is also meant to strike terror into the heart of society and therefore creating divisions and distrust along societal fault lines. I do not believe I am exaggerating therefore when I say that fake news is not far from terrorism in its intent and malice to divide.

That fake news has that ability to strike divisions in society is something that we cannot take lightly in Singapore. It is no secret that our social stability hinges on our racial and religious harmony. It has always been a pillar of our nation-building, which is something we cannot compromise on. We have seen in the recent example of the Sri Lankan bomb blasts on Easter Day, that a society where fault lines have existed, can be a fertile ground for terror groups even when there was little or no apparent threat there in the first place.

Singapore is no different. Our diversity makes us a vulnerable target for bad actors who wish to divide us along racial and religious lines. The reality of our world today is that there are people who will weaponise religion to achieve their aims – to win an election, or to radicalise others with their views.

The truth is, today, social media and digital technology have become convenient, cheap and fast tools to amplify their views and to drown out other legitimate voices. The confluence of these two factors can lead to dangerous results. There is sufficient evidence around us to show that these observations are very real.

Take our neighbour, Indonesia, for example, which ranks as the third largest market for Facebook, and the top five market for WhatsApp, Instagram and Twitter. During its recent Presidential Election, Mafindo – the country's fact-checking agency – documented a surge in political fake news that used ethnicity and religion to target both candidates.

Some of these false claims include that Jokowi was Chinese, Christian and a communist. As many as 25% of Indonesians polled believed this news and as many as 42% of the Prabowo supporters believed this about Jokowi. Other false news included that Jokowi wanted to ban religious teachings in schools and abolish the call to prayer, among other things.

The falsehoods will follow different fault lines in each country. In majority Roman-Catholic Philippines, false claims that a Cebu-based Parish priest had impregnated two daughters of his associate priest was consumed by more than 185,000 people and triggered anti-Catholic comments from other religious quarters.

All of this has happened in our very neighbourhood. Why would Singapore be any different if such false news were left unchecked here? In fact, the impact could be far worse and could create a severe and irreparable dent in the social harmony that we have worked so hard to build and uphold. It is clearly not worth it.

If we take all other aspects of national security very seriously, as we should, then fake news should be treated no differently, given its potential harm. The legislation and powers in place will easily separate what is fake and untrue from what is true, fact-based and analytical. As such, it will allow Government agencies the bandwidth and precision with which it can engage credible views thereby strengthening political discourse. So, even when there is a statement of fact that is false, and it is against public interest, the Bill will enforce a remedy that will most likely be a Correction Direction – to carry a clarification while the false statement can remain up. That will then allow readers the choice to decide for themselves what is right or what is wrong.

Such efforts will thus create a more informed citizenry with accurate information rather than disinformation thereby increasing the quality of policy analysis or political discourse and help us create a more informed and discerning society. Most importantly, the public has to recognise that the Government is acting for the betterment of Singapore and Singaporeans. This law will ensure that our children will not grow up in the future in a society where they will be the subjects, victims or consumers of fake news. This Government has attempted to provide stability, peace and safety to generations of Singaporeans and have always acted in the long term. No reason why it should not continue to do so with POFMA, whether it is against the perils of fake news, terror or social instability. I would want to provide that peace of mind to my children.

My response to Workers' Party's continued insistence that the Court be the first arbitrator of fact, but based on what has been discussed so far, it seems that the only arbitrator is the Court. And that you portray the Government as an untrustworthy boogie man. Well, my response is probably summed up in the following quote. Former US President Franklin Roosevelt said, "Let us never forget that Government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and Government officials, but the voters of this country."

Dear Speaker, Sir and my respected colleagues in this House, given all the problems with falsehoods, and the issues it has already created the world over, as well as our current inability to address such externalities created by the advent of new media, the Bill is timely and pertinent. I thus support the Bill. Please allow me to continue in Malay.

( In Malay ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the rapid development of technology, including information and communication platforms, has brought many benefits to the world and greatly helped make our lives easier.

However, alongside these great benefits, potentially harmful effects also exist.

As we harness technology, we must also be aware of any negative impact that comes with it and consider the best ways to overcome them without hindering the convenience and advantages that we can use.

Online platforms brought many benefits to the world but, like many other things, any misuse, whether intentional or not, needs to be dealt with.

This is especially so for Singapore, a small multi-racial and multi-religious country where there are minorities and the majority. Our different races and religions have been able to live harmoniously, whether in schools, in living spaces, at work and in businesses. This did not happen by chance. We have worked hard to develop policies and initiatives that instil trust amongst the different races and religions.

Therefore, we should not take things for granted and be complacent about the peace and harmony that we enjoy today. Our diversity makes us vulnerable targets for bad actors who wish to divide our society along racial and religious lines. We have seen this happening in other countries. Hence, we need to build a proper defence against it.

Singapore is a country with a multi-racial and multi-religious society. Our different races and religions have been able to live harmoniously, be it in schools, living spaces and at work.

The reality of our world today is that there are people who will weaponise religion against followers of other religions to achieve their aims; to win an election or to radicalise others with their views.

Social media and digital technology have become a convenient, cheap and fast tool to amplify their views and to drown out other legitimate voices. We have seen this happen in nearby countries.

Indonesia, for example, is the third largest market for Facebook users and the top five market globally for WhatsApp, Instagram and Twitter. The propagation of fake news that utilises religious elements can be fatal to the country, where the majority are Muslims while minorities comprise Christians, Hindus and Buddhists.

During the recent Indonesian Presidential Election, the country's fact-checking agency, Mafindo, documented political fake news that used ethnicity and religion to target both Presidential candidates. Its report showed that political fake news experienced a 61% surge. President Jokowi fell victim to 75 fake news articles that went viral, while his challenger, Prabowo, experienced 50 such incidents.

This fake news appeared in Facebook, followed by Twitter and WhatsApp by percentages. Around 30% of this fake news was shared in digital media, rearranged neatly and bolstered by other details and accounts. The fake news was created according to the fault lines of a particular country.

We cannot take the position that these cases occur far away from our country and we are not vulnerable to the dangers.

I would like to mention an example of Sunni-Shia tensions that came about during an incident a few years ago involving two Police officers who were detained under the ISA for terrorism-related offences. One of the detainees was said to believe that the war in Syria was a result of Sunni-Shia conflict. He wanted to join the Free Syrian Army and fight against the Shia followers in Syria.

Imagine the impact of such tensions in Singapore. In this country, Sunni followers form the majority of Muslims, while Shia followers comprise around just 1%. The fact is that Singapore is not immune to hatred targeted to the Shia, which is gaining traction around the world.

The social media group in Facebook called Singapore Malays Reject Shiism has 1,814 members who are often found attacking the Shia followers . There are also comments on YouTube and social media that refer to the Shia followers as having gone astray, becoming apostates, and, in fact, called them "monkeys" and "the Devil".

Mr Hazrul Jamari, who gave evidence at the Select Committee hearings, said that he encountered videos of beheadings in Syria that had been spread through social media in Singapore. These videos aim to create trouble between Shia and Sunni followers. He agreed that the tension between Sunni and Shia followers worsened in Singapore after the videos were exchanged and posted.

How would this Bill deal with such incidents? It must be clarified that claims related to history and the interpretation of religious history would not be included in the Bill. However, if falsehoods have been used to create tension, this Bill can help to counter it.

The fact remains that if falsehoods are allowed to propagate, it will be a threat to our country. The strategy to deal with it has been widely discussed. The proposed measures have been considered carefully without any intent to hinder the flow of information or to curb opinions. This includes asking which authority can take action, and if there should be a fact-checking body.

However, based on the examples I have mentioned earlier, the speed at which falsehoods spread, especially those that pit religion against each other, can result in an undesirable situation if it is not dealt with immediately.

The proposal to delegate the responsibility to either a body or a committee is a good suggestion, but in terms of implementation it will create another layer and its process may take up more time. And such a body will also need to be appointed by the Government. So, we will be going around in circles.

Therefore, the proposal for the Minister to take the step of issuing a factual correction on any falsehood is the best method, because it can be done more quickly, but at the same time, it does not mean that the Minister can act without any strong justification.

The law will only be used if a statement of fact is false and goes against public interest. If such a case happens, it is likely that the measure taken will be a correction direction, that is, to place the correction alongside the false statement. Readers can then decide the truth for themselves.

There may be concerns that, through the Act, are the Ministers or the Government being given too much curbing power and who can override the Government's power? In this matter, I welcome the availability of open processes and channels for those who wish to challenge the decision and to bring the matter to the Courts, and the process will also be made quick and convenient.

Earlier, Mr Faisal Manap and Mr Leon Perera highlighted a few things that question the Government's integrity and the intent of POFMA. Although clarifications were made by Minister Shanmugam about protection, with the Court as a final arbiter, they continue to ignore that fact. Minister Shanmugam had just explained earlier that the Courts are part of the process like our citizens.

The Government must be at the frontline because the Ministries should be in a position to respond quickly. If riots or violence occur as a result of falsehoods, the Government needs to act quickly. The Court is not necessarily open at all times and the judge will need to be briefed. It is a practical matter for the sake of national security.

The ability to act quickly will determine whether damage is irreparable or not, and whether people will suffer or not in the end. But this does not mean that the Court is not involved. If any party feels that a Minister's decision needs to be reviewed, Minister Shanmugam has said earlier that the Court will be the final arbiter and the case will be heard in as early as nine days.

The Workers' Party continues to ignore the fact that the Minister can be challenged. Do not forget that if the Court finds that the challenge is successful, this would also impact the Minister's political performance because people will be questioning his judgement.

So, I do not think that the Minister or the Government takes things lightly. More importantly, the POFMA's approach is quite different from other countries which have dealt with it through a take-down order. We are using the correction direction. The people can decide for themselves whether what they see is the truth or otherwise.

The approach is to make the correction alongside the original post. So, people can decide. I hope that they do not underestimate the people of Singapore as not being smart enough to make a decision. Finally, I think that the snide remarks directed at our leaders, to prove that public office holders cannot be trusted to provide good progress, are erroneous.

When the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew stated that PAP is the Government and the Government is the PAP, I believe that it was based on the standard of democracy in the Westminster Parliament. He meant that the Government is formed by the party that wins the most number of seats in Parliament and the party that forms the Parliament is elected by the people to exercise wisdom for the country.

If the Workers' Party wins the election one day, it will be a WP Parliament. The same term is used commonly around the world for any similar system. So, let us not twist the quotes of our Founder just to support unsound arguments.

At the end of the day, Singapore is not free from challenges and threats, such as online falsehoods, and we must agree that a careful and effective strategy must be taken and we should not delay this. It needs consensus and cooperation from everyone.

We have been facing the dangers of online falsehoods for a long time and seen that its adverse impact includes dividing society. Should we just remain silent? It is the duty of any government to protect every member of society and safeguard national interests. The people have all along given this trust to the PAP Government and this Bill is just another step to extend that protection to Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, I support this Bill.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: ( In Malay ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to correct what was said by Mr Zaqy Mohamad when he stated that I was playing with the quotes that I mentioned, which were words spoken by the late Prime Minister. That was not my intention. I said that the words uttered by the late Prime Minister can be interpreted this way, that the Government includes Government bodies, statutory bodies and also the Civil Service and vice-versa.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: ( In Malay ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Thank you. Perhaps we have different interpretations. No further questions, Speaker.

4.08 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, permit me to go straight to the issues without making the usual prefatory remarks. Sir, the structure of the statute, from a drafting perspective, is unique. Usually, in previous pieces of legislation passed by this House, when it comes to exercise of the Minister's discretion dealing with public order issues, there is no providing of an appeal as a matter of right to the Court. There is a limited recourse in form of judicial review of the Minister's decision.

In some statutes, the Court's power of review has been ousted, for example, the Maintenance of the Religious Harmony Act and the Internal Security Act.

Here, what is contemplated is two-fold. An appeal to the Supreme Court on the issue of the truth or falsity of the representation and attribution of the representation to a person in Singapore as well as a parallel track of a judicial review of the Minister's decision, which operates separately. This regime deals with the point that the hon Member Assoc Prof Walter Theseira made about what happens if the Government gets it wrong, by reference to Galileo's case. In Galileo's case, the Church took more than three centuries to correct itself. Here there is an appeal process and there are timelines for the appeal process to complete.

Originally, I was concerned with the structure of the Act leading to the appeal process. This is because when I looked at it, I saw that the appeal is made "after the fact" meaning after the Minister's decision is made. And it will only be initiated by the respondent to the direction made under POFMA. The concern I had was that, ordinarily, it would be for the Executive to make out the case first as opposed to requiring the respondent at the outset to state why the Executive got it wrong without knowing the Executive's case.

But having reviewed the material closer, my concern on this matter has been assuaged. This is because I noted that the Minister, stated yesterday, at the point when a Direction is issued, the Minister would have to nail his or her colours to the mast by stating the reasons why the Direction is being issued. This Direction will also be gazetted.

In relation to this point, the hon Members Ms Anthea Ong as well as Assoc Prof Walter Theseira said, "But that is in subsidiary legislation". When the Minister made his statement at the Second Reading of the Bill, that goes into the corpus of the Hansard on how the legislation is to be reviewed and that creates a legitimate expectation. When the Court reviews the exercise of power against the legitimate expectations created, it can strike down the power which is used outside the legitimate expectations it has been created.

So, the Executive's case would be crystalised at the outset. The respondent would know what case he or she has to meet. In this regard, the hon Member Mr Leon Perera said but in the process the legal burden would be on the respondent. With great respect, that is not how I understand POFMA to be. The provisions are quite clear. The legal burden always is rested with the Executive to prove that the Part 3 directions comply with the criteria for falsehood as well as public interest.

Hon Members of Parliament have engaged in a lively debate on which is the proper entity or person who should make a decision to issue Directions under POFMA. Under the proposed POFMA, there are two cumulative conditions: falsity of the statement of fact and public interest. When it comes to deciding what is in public interest, what kind of decision maker do we need? This is the point that hon Member Mr Cedric Foo made very cogently a few hours ago. We would need a decision maker who is in touch with the ground situation, not just in Singapore but even overseas. He or she would have to have access to intelligence reports, gauge what would be the likely reaction of Singapore residents, what steps are needed to address the problems on the ground. These are just some examples.

With due respect, it is not easy for the Courts to make such a decision. Courts are best suited to apply the law, including the law promulgated by this House. Do not get me wrong. I am not saying that the Court cannot review a decision made in public interest. I recalled when the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill was moved in this House, my Parliamentary colleagues from the Workers' Party spoke about the development of judicial review in Singapore, by reference to the speech delivered extra-judicially by the hon Chief Justice in America. His honour said that "judicial review is the sharp edge that keeps government action within the form and substance of the law." His honour also spoke about the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation within the context of judicial review. So, there is a robust system in place. This is the system that will guard against actions of a rogue government. This would ensure that powers are only used in the manner that the Government has promised at the Second Reading of this Bill.

Decisions of what is in public interest are therefore best to be left with Ministers who head the Ministries, have access to Civil Service apparatus, are elected and are accountable to the people through the ballot box.

The hon Member Prof Lim Sun Sun said that Ministers would benefit from inputs from advisory panel and I agree. It may well be that the Ministers, after the passing of this Bill, may want to set up advisory panels to get the necessary inputs and make appropriate decisions.

The hon Member Mr Pritam Singh made a comparison between POHA and POFMA, and pointed out that there is regime for expedited protection orders issued by the Court. He, I believe, wondered why this same route cannot be used for POFMA. Looking at just the legal ingredients, there is a singular difference. The issues under POFMA, unlike POHA, affect public interest. This means a lot more is at stake.

I am not trivialising the effect of harassment of a POHA victim. I am not. But what I am trying to say is that, when it comes to POFMA, we are talking about public interest. There is a potential for disaffection amongst groups of people. It can change the complexion of society if something happens. And that is why we cannot afford to have inaction or slow action. And that is why the procedure has been streamlined to allow for the Executive to take action fast but without losing the accountability that the regime contemplates.

The hon Member, Mr Leon Perera, spoke about the American experience, where in America, a judicial officer would make himself or herself available to issue a warrant of arrest. Now, that may be so in America. In Singapore, I believe, by the 1970s, we have moved ahead. In Singapore, Police officers are vested with powers of arrest without warrant. These are serious powers but they are accountable and they do it in the right circumstance and we see the effect of it. From the 1970s to date, actually, our crime rates has come down so much and really, we need not compare ourselves with America in this situation.

Mr Perera also talked about the impact on the individual – who is visited with a Direction under POFMA. We need to compare, because when you are talking about public interest as a potential for large groups of people to be affected. Yes, there is an impact on the individual. But what is the kind of impact we are talking about? Most times, we are talking about a Correction order. He or she can comment on the correction order. He or she can comment on the Ministerial action. So, we need to strike a proper balancing act between the impact on an individual and the potential for disaffection amongst lots of people. And I think this Bill strikes the right balance.

I now turn to the issue of assessment of the representation of fact. Several hon Members in Opposition, including the hon Member Mr Low Thia Khiang, expressed the view that POFMA is meant to chill criticisms against the Government. He then went on to state, "I have no faith in this Government" or words to that effect, and the Pioneer Generation Package and the Merdeka Generation Package were meant to buy votes.

As stated by the hon Member, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, both statements are clearly statements of opinion and not caught by POFMA. Just like if I were to say that some hon Members in this House are fearmongering. That is an opinion. That is not a statement of fact. How can there be a chilling effect introduced by POFMA in these circumstances?

What we need to be mindful about is that as the hon Minister mentioned yesterday, what the Government is trying to do through POFMA is to narrow the powers. He mentioned about two pieces of legislation where there are broad powers and if used may be like using a sledgehammer to break a nut. Here, you have fairly forensic powers, including that of issuing a Correction order. Now, would not that be a better approach? If the Government were to commit to use a narrow set of powers, is that the sign of a government which is not acting in good faith?

The hon Members Ms Irene Quay and Ms Anthea Ong mentioned that there is nothing in the Bill that states that the focus of POFMA is only on statements of facts and not opinion. But that has been stated by a number of frontbenchers on a few occasions. And if one were to look at the interpretation of statute, read it with the Interpretation Act, the Courts will know what to do. They will know what is the intention of the Government. They know that POFMA Directions are not meant to be applied for opinions.

The hon Members Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Dennis Tay highlighted that under POFMA, statements which are misleading are also caught in addition to statements which are false. They seem to suggest that there is a significant enlargement of the scope of the Bill in these circumstances.

Now, I looked at the definition under the proposed section 2(2) of the Bill. What is clear is that the main criterion is that there must be a statement of fact, and this is a point that the hon Senior Minister of State Mr Edwin Tong made. So, the usage of misleading does not enlarge the scope of the representations to include opinion. The way I read section 2(2B) is that the intention behind the usage of misleading is to focus on statements of fact that weave truth with fiction, such that it creates a distorted statement which is false.

So, in relation to the hon Member Mr Dennis Tan's example of a person who states, "I lodged a Police report". That assessment is either true or false, and if you were to put in the definition of misleading, it does not change. The ultimate outcome is whether or not the statement is a statement of fact which is true or false. So, with respect, I do not see this as significantly enlarging the issues. In fact, the wording is essential to deal with the mischief this Bill is aimed at addressing.

There is also a point made by the hon Member Mr Low Thia Khiang about the Government being a player and a referee. It is vested with powers under the POFMA. I reflected on his statement. I believe with respect, he may have conflated a number of scenarios together. I think that no one in this House would raise an objection if a POFMA Direction is issued to deal with a public interest, race issue, language issue, religious issue or issues dealing with relations with foreign powers or national security. In these kind of situations, both sides of the House must unite. That is a no-brainer. It is sometimes good in debates to highlight what is the common ground that is achieved between both sides of the House.

So, what are we left with? We are left with areas where potentially, powers can be used for political purposes. In that kind of situation, it is pretty clear to me, reading POFMA, that it would not be consistent with the definition of public interest for a Minister to issue a Direction to further his or her political aims. What is the safeguard? The safeguard is the Court because the Court, through judicial review, would be the referee.

The hon Member Mr Faisal Manap talked about conflict of interest. He gave an example of the Prime Minister stating in this House that he does not wish to sue his siblings because they are his siblings and he is in a conflict position in relation to the allegations made by siblings against him about abuse of power. But that is in relation to him, in his personal standing. But when it comes to Government, that is a completely different thing. There is a set procedure. If a Minister is conflicted, he cannot make that decision. Somebody else would have to make a decision. So, the issue of conflict would not arise in these circumstances.

Ultimately, we must all remember our fellow Singaporeans are looking at us and they would be holding the Government to account through the ballot box. I do think, however, it would be useful for the hon Minister to provide an outline of how he intends that the powers under POFMA be exercised, in terms of the variety of tools, to effect a Correction, for example, or effect to take down, because we hear from the hon Minister that in most circumstances, it would usually be a Correction order.

This outline can help even the Court later to assess whether the exercise of power under POFMA is within the legitimate expectations arising from the Minister's statements when it reviews the Minister's decision later. It sharpens the ability of the Court to review Executive action that ensures that this is legal and proper. And I believe this is the point that the hon Member Mr Vikram Nair made.

I now come to my next point. I have a concern that two parallel procedures providing for judicial oversight may, in certain circumstances, create difficulties. I made mention at the outset that is not usual for statues to have this two levels of judicial oversight, and I have some sympathies for the draftsman.

In a situation where a respondent both prosecutes an appeal to a Supreme Court Judge and also intends to take up judicial review, the Supreme Court Judge listening to the appeal in relation to whether a statement of fact is true or false, would only deal with half the issues. His decision on the appeal is not dispositive of the matter. This is not necessarily the most judicious use of a Supreme Court Judge's resource.

I am also concerned that there could be a risk of inconsistent decisions as a High Court decision on the truth of the representation is not necessarily binding on the High Court dealing with the judicial review.

Let me explain through an example. Hon Members of this House may recall an incident involving a market operator issuing a flyer in four languages, namely English, Mandarin, Malay and Hindi. Tamil was excluded. Let us consider a situation where a person noting this incident publishes a representation online referring to the above matter and announcing "Hindi has become a recognised language in Singapore".

Let us assume that the Government takes action against the person under POFMA and the person appeals to the High Court on the issue of whether the statement is false and also seeks a judicial review.

Under our current rules, the High Court appeal has to be disposed off first, before the separate judicial review application. This is because, under our rules, judicial review applications are measures of last resort. The High Court would then have to decide first whether the statement is true or false.

This may seem like a binary choice – true or false. But the reasons underpinning the decision may be relevant on a consequent issue of public interest. Let us assume the High Court decides that the representation is false and provides an explanation for its decision. Looking at the representation, it could be false in a number of ways, but I will highlight just two.

One, it could be false as it suggests Tamil is being replaced by Hindi. This obviously would create feelings of enmity and ill-will between groups of people; particularly involving Tamil-speaking people. It may be in public interest to correct that representation. Or it could be false as it suggests that Hindi is being added, not replaced, as a recognised language. Here, whether or not there is a public interest involved, it is more arguable.

Some in this House may ask whether there is a need for the High Court to articulate its reasons. Could it just say true or false? The answer is, of course, no.

The Supreme Court is an independent branch of our Government that is vested judicial power under Article 93 of the Constitution. It has a responsibility to build jurisprudence, explain its decisions through grounds that are released, unless the issues are really plain and obvious, especially if there is an appeal. It also ensures transparency.

Let us assume that the person loses the appeal and then commences the High Court action to review their decision. The High Court, listening to the judicial review application, is not bound by the decision of the other Court. The focus of the review will be on public interest but it overlaps with what is assessed to be a representation of fact because that is what the lawyers call, a jurisdictional fact. So, it can be, for example, open to the High Court to decide the statement is true because Hindi is offered in our schools and therefore, it is a recognised language.

So, to guard against these possibilities, I wonder if the Ministry had considered enacting a statutory review procedure, together with the appeal procedure, such that a person who wishes to challenge the Minister's decision on falsity and public interest, can do it in one shot. It can overcome the procedural hurdle that the appeal has been disposed off before the judicial review process begins.

My suggestion is a bit different from what the hon Member Mr Dennis Tan has suggested because he said the High Court should have oversight over all issues. Here, I think there is merit in retaining judicial review in relation to exercise of public interest. That is a decision that has been made by the Minister for the reasons I mentioned earlier but, of course, can be subject to a review.

The same High Court Judge should decide on both matters. Even if the same High Court Judge is designated by the Chief Justice to hear the judicial review matter, so long as the matters are separate, he is not bound by his prior decision. So, by twinning the process, there is no risk of inconsistent decisions.

To guard against abuse of process of judicial review, there can even be a stipulation for a leave procedure to sift out unmeritorious applications. It is important that statutory review procedures be simplified and be rendered cost-effective – this is a point that my learned friend Ms Sylvia Lim made, for the same reasons as to why the appeal procedure has to be cost-effective as well.

I would welcome the hon Minister's thoughts on this. I am not saying that this is a likely outcome but I think there could be some risks and I would be grateful for his elaboration on this matter.

Now, I come to my last point. The hon Nominated Members of Parliament —

Mr Speaker: Mr Pillai, you need to wrap up.

Mr Murali Pillai: Yes, Sir. If I used up my time then, I will stop here, Sir.

Mr Speaker: You have.

Mr Murali Pillai: Okay, I will stop.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. Mr Leon Perera.

4.30 pm

Mr Leon Perera: I thank the hon Member Mr Murali Pillai for some of his references to my speech and the speeches of my colleagues. I would respectfully just ask for a few points of clarification.

Firstly, Mr Pillai referred to the Government bearing a legal burden because the Government has an obligation, as has been stated, to outline the reasons behind exercising a Part 3 or Part 4 directive. Would the hon Member acknowledge that it would only become a legal burden as in a pleading before the Court if the respondent actually went to court? And would the hon Member acknowledge that there are, I think, many respondents who would not take up the burden, would not want to take on the Government in court for the reasons that my colleagues have shared? That is my first point.

My second point is the hon Member referred to POHA Courts dealing with matters that are perhaps less important in the bigger scheme of things than POFMA. I actually understand where the hon Member is coming from. I think there is a grain of truth there. I would not sort of wave that off. Would there not be a further argument for the Government, the state, the society to actually invest in developing judicial capacity, structures and processes even more for the administration of POFMA than what has already been done for the administration of POHA. We recognise that POFMA is dealing with actually more important societal or political issues as opposed to POHA which is dealing with individual cases, that affect individuals only.

And the last point really is, I think, the hon Member mentioned that I talked about the effect on individuals of receiving a Correction directive and it could affect their reputation and so on. There are individual issues at stake but we could balance that against the societal issue. Would the hon Member acknowledge that actually the point I was making was not so much that it is bad for the individuals but that it actually chills free speech, it may lead to self-censorship, it may lead to self-censorship affecting political discourse and, therefore, by implication political outcomes. So, there are very large societal and political issues at stake. It is not just a matter of balancing individual against social.

So, having said that, I thank the hon Member and I, respectfully put forward these requests for clarification.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pillai.

Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to reply to the hon Member Mr Leon Perera. He raises three issues and I am grateful to Mr Perera for the opportunity to clarify the points that I have made in relation to these three points.

The first point he made was in relation to the legal burden in any appeal proceedings. And it goes without saying and I agree fully with him, the legal burden would only arise if there are legal proceedings, meaning if there was an appeal. But that is not the end of the matter. As I mentioned in my speech, at the outset, the Minister would have to nail his or her colours on the mast, because he would have to issue the reasons why a direction is issued and that is gazetted. And that is available to members of public as well. So, from that perspective, there is accountability.

In relation to the second point, I believe the second point concerns about making sure that there is sufficient judicial resource. That is a very, very important point. And, in fact, it occurred to me that the Government obviously is taking POFMA issues seriously because it could have designated an appeal from a POFMA issue relating to a representation of fact at the District Court level.

What it did here is to elevate it to the Supreme Court level. So, we are looking increasing judicial resources at the Supreme Court level. That is not an easy situation. At the Supreme Court level, you are talking about Supreme Court Judges who are at the top of the game. They have security of tenure, you have to make sure they do not just deal with POFMA matters but they deal with the whole gamut of issues and make sure they superintend justice in the way that reflects public interest, that ensures and safeguards the interest of our country. It is not easy. In fact, we have made a lot of progress in our Bar but I cannot think of more than 10 people whom I can offer as candidates for judicial appointments in the Supreme Court because it is a very rigorous process. It is not easy to build resources that way.

That is why having regard to the limitations we have as a small country, I thought the configuration that POFMA envisages in relation to Ministerial action with accountability to the Courts always is a good balance. We need to be honest about the resources that we have or do not have.

The point about individuals and the chilling effect on them, I hear my learned friend but I think the point I was focused on is this. If we accept for the moment that all that POFMA is focused on is not opinion but statements of facts which are false, then the issue about chilling effect can be viewed a little bit more carefully and really see whether, indeed, it is really perceived or real. Like, for example, when a person says, you know, that "the Merdeka Generation Package is meant to buy votes", if the person says that "I have no faith in Government." If they were to say all these things and the assurance from the frontbenchers is that, "No, it is not caught POFMA", that I am trying to see how then POFMA introduces a chilling effect. Like what I also said in my speech was that there is nothing stopping the individual who is subject of a POFMA direction to comment on the POFMA Direction. So, he has that right in relation to what has happened to him.

Again, it is a balancing act. I do see where my learned friend Mr Perera is coming from. Sometimes, issues are perceived. Sometimes, we do not know exactly how things are going to pan out. We make the best judgement on the facts that we have and what we think would be the reasonable assessment or reasonable way people behave and then we see how it goes.

I believe I have covered all three points.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Very brief. I completely agree with the hon Member that this Government will definitely move faster than the Church did with Galileo. I think that is a given. But that is because the Church or the Inquisition did not have a robust fast appeal process in the primary legislation. That is why. So, I hope he would agree that that might be a good idea to have so that random changing of Popes and all that would not result in the appeal process being drawn out too long.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chen Show Mao.

4.38 pm

Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied): ( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] According to the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill (POFMA), individuals who disseminate falsehoods that undermine the public interest can be jailed up to 10 years, fined up to $100,000. Legal persons can be fined up to $1 million. It cannot be said that this new Bill does not contain harsh terms.

According to the Bill, the Government can issue mandatory orders to individuals and online platforms to correct or remove falsehoods. Every Minister has the power to decide which information is genuine or false or against the public interest, and issue directives to correct or remove the information, even if the information has been amended or is no longer being disseminated in Singapore.

Is a statement of fact false or genuine, and is it against public interest – the Bill has given every Minister ample discretion to decide.

Under the Bill, "falsehoods" is defined as information that is “false or misleading, whether wholly or in part or whether on its own or in the context in which it appears". "Information" is defined as “any word (including abbreviation and initial), number, image (moving or otherwise), sound, symbol or other representation, or a combination of any of these".

"Public interest" is defined to include public confidence in our Government. That is to say, if any Minister believes that a particular falsehood has affected public confidence in the Government, including confidence in the Ministry he is in charge of, he has the authority to require that the false information be corrected or removed. If the party involved disagrees, he can lodge an appeal with the Court after he has made the corrections or removed the information.

As for that appeal, the Bill stipulates that the Court can only set aside the Minister's directives under three circumstances: if "the person did not communicate in Singapore the subject statement; it is not technically possible to comply with the Direction"; or if "the subject statement is not a statement of fact, or is a true statement of fact" – in other words, the information is not a falsehood. Even then, the Court will not be able to review the Minister’s determination of whether a false statement of fact has affected public confidence in the Government.

Mr Speaker, some say, "Why worry? This is simply the Government carrying out its work. If the people are not happy, they can change the Government at the next elections. What is more, the Minister is a dependable public servant. Even if the text of the Bill grants him great powers, he, in fact, will not abuse them."

This is a big topic which I touch on briefly here.

I believe that the success of a political system in delivering results for its people, whether in the West or the East, depends to a large extent on effective checks on the exercise of power. These checks take many forms: democratic elections are one; so is the rule of law, also the moral and ethical codes that guide and constrain the behaviour of government officials and the people; the public disclosure of information, including online information; the freedom of speech, including online speech and so on. They are all mechanisms that provide checks on the exercise of power. They are not mutually exclusive. The more of them we can integrate and accommodate, the better. This is a worthy challenge for us.

Let us talk about the checks on power provided by laws. The rule of law has had great success in the West historically. To promote the rule of law in opposition to the rule of man is also a growing aspiration in the East, making the rule of law increasingly a universal human value. But the rule of law is not achieved merely by a high volume of legislation. The existence of a large number of laws does not in itself effectively constrain the exercise of power. If the laws we make grant the Minister great powers, to be used at his discretion, if we do not clearly calibrate in the text of a law its constraints on power, then we will not be able to say that we have successfully met our challenge: that we successfully married the rule of law with our hopes for a rule of virtue.

Mr Speaker: Order. It is a fact that we have sat for nearly six hours. It is my opinion that we should take a break now. I suspend the Sitting until 5.05 pm

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.43 pm until 5.05 pm.

Sitting resumed at 5.05 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]: ####

Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill: Debate resumed.

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, much has been discussed yesterday and today, and the debates seems to dwell in my view, disproportionately, on freedom of speech and silencing of the Government's critics. I would like to go back to why we are having this Bill.

Online falsehoods can lead to very serious law and order concerns, in a very short time. This is because purveyors of falsehoods prey on our societal fault lines, such as race and religion, in order to exploit social media algorithms, draw eyeballs and go viral. Around the world, we have seen a pattern of falsehoods proliferating in the wake of serious public order incidents. These falsehoods seek to exacerbate social divisions. And various examples have been cited in this House by various speakers.

Mr Speaker, Singapore is not exempt from fake news too. Clearly, we need speedy, targeted tools. In some other countries, the lack of these tools has led the Government to resort to disproportionate measures. We saw this in Sri Lanka, where in the immediate aftermath of the Easter Sunday bombings, the Sri Lankan government moved to ban various social media sites, including Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram among others, to pre-empt divisive misinformation. The ban was only lifted one week later. While I support the Bill, I would like to highlight some ground concerns and also to seek some clarifications from the Minister.

The key recommendation by the Select Committee was to disrupt online falsehoods by breaking the virality of the fake news and increase the reach of corrections. The Bill has put in place clauses requiring online platforms to spread the corrections. While this is a good move, the key to making this work lies in its implementation. How fast must a correction be put up? Viral stories spread quickly. If the correction is put up too late, we risk having the correction just as a token measure as the misinformation has already spread and few, if any, will read the correction if it is put up too late.

When it comes to increasing the reach of the corrections, social media sites must play their part. While the Bill requires online platforms to help alert users to the correction, sites will need to review the way they manage the original post to raise awareness about the correction. One example is the "share" function on Facebook. I propose that following a correction, all shared posts be applied with a filter, similar to the violent content filter that we already have, to alert users that there is an attached correction to this particular news. This way, new readers can be made aware that the content contains certain falsehoods.

Mr Speaker, another important aspect to consider is that often, the most convincing fake news are half-truths. Stories that are peppered with blatant false facts can be easily identified. But stories with just the right mix of facts and false statements can be hard to distinguish, and individuals do share these stories with their friends. The Minister has mentioned on more than one occasion that the Bill does not make it an offence for a person who unwittingly share an online falsehood.

But there is still much confusion on the ground, especially among our more elderly residents. They are worried because some people are telling them that they will get into trouble with the new law. So, they are worried, what if I forward something on WhatsApp to my friends? What if I shared something on Facebook or Instagram? Will I get into trouble? It is therefore important for the Government and Members of this House to continue reassuring the public on what happens if they are unwitting pawns of a purveyor of fake news. I think the short answer is, nothing happens.

Mr Speaker, since the First Reading of the Bill, there have been concerns about stifling freedom of speech and individual rights, even in this debate, we have heard Members of the Workers' Party that the Bill will have a chilling effect on free speech. I am therefore glad that the Minister has corrected these misconceptions: one, that the Court will be the final arbiter of what is to be considered true or false; two, that the Bill only pertains to statement of facts, not opinions, not criticism nor satire; and three, that the Bill is targeted at falsehoods that affect public interest.

However, the definition of public interest under the Bill is rather wide. While I acknowledge the need for the most workable version of defining public interest, such a wide definition could still be constantly challenged. Would the Courts be the final arbiter of whether an issue is of public interest? Does the Minister foresee many legal challenges on this front and what will be done to educate Singaporeans on what constitutes public interest?

The Government will also need to work together with the Courts to put in place a simple and expeditious appeal process. How fast will it take for an appeal to reach the Court? Will there be a fee imposed? Can a person seek a review of a Correction Direction without needing to engage a lawyer? These are all important operational concerns that need to be articulated to the public, to assure Singaporeans that the exercise of powers under the proposed legislation is subjected to proper oversight by the Courts.

Mr Speaker, the proposals in this Bill are unique. The Government's approach to countering fake news is different from other countries. And in my view, different in a positive way. Rather than requiring all originators of fake news to immediately take down the questionable content, which is what Germany has done, this Bill focuses on ensuring that facts are stated accurately and that readers are aware of the inaccuracies on a timely basis. I hope that through this, our society will grow to be more media literate over time.

But media literacy cannot be achieved just from this Bill alone. All levels of society will need to partner with one another to make this happen. Social media sites must recognise that they owe a responsibility to ensure that their content is factually accurate. But that in itself is a big challenge as some of the existing models thrive on news virality. The public must also arm ourselves with the necessary skills to decipher between what is real and what is fake. The Government has done much in recent months on public engagement and I hope that such efforts continue unabated.

Mr Speaker, let me conclude by saying that fake news is not a new phenomenon. History provides many examples of misinformation being used for malicious purposes. What is new, is the advent of technologies that help to spread such fake news at a rate faster than ever before.

This Bill therefore provides us with new tools, new measures to fight against deliberate online falsehoods and manipulation. Things that aim to harm our society. The Government must be able to take swift action. The Government should have the powers to take swift action. Ministers with the domain expertise must be able to be in a position to speedily conclude whether a statement of fact is false and what course of action is in the public interest.

Nothing stops the original author nor the platform nor anyone else from commenting on the original post or the evidence provided by the Minister, or the Correction Direction itself. If Ministers cannot intervene early, in a calibrated manner, falsehoods can quickly erupt into violence, as we have seen in many other countries, which will then warrant more drastic measures for us to take. And when that happens, damage, some of which may be irreversible, would have been done. And that to me, will indeed be chilling. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Minister Ong Ye Kung.

5.18 pm

The Minister for Education (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Speaker, Sir, when Mr Melvin Yong said that we need better media literacy, I was bracing myself that he would say, "So, we need MOE to teach media literacy." We always hear people say that the root of any problem in the world is education.

That aside, the ambit of this law has little to do with my Ministry. But since I received a letter from concerned academics, I thought I should speak at this debate. As of the afternoon of 6 May, as reported by Assoc Prof Walter Theseira earlier on, the letter was signed by 124 academics. We did not do any database check, but to the best of MOE's knowledge, 71 are foreign academics based in foreign universities and 52 are Singaporeans – 25 based in foreign universities outside of Singapore and 27 based in local Universities. There is one signatory who is a foreign academic based in a local University.

My colleagues from MCI and MinLaw have offered to meet with the academics who signed the letter. The offer has not been formally taken up yet, but I understand many of them have attended the dialogue sessions with Minister Shanmugam, Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong as well as Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary. The three of them have been visiting Universities and conducting talks and I hope that our three public office-holders (POHs) have largely assuaged their concerns.

Today, I will first explain how hard, or rather how impossible it is, for academic research to run afoul of POFMA. Second, I will comment on what I think the academics or at least some of them, are really worried about. I will end my speech with a summary in Chinese.

I have been sitting here listening to the debate, and I think we have, unfortunately, started to obfuscate what the core matter is about. We started to come out with scenarios where we think falsehoods or truths are somewhat fuzzy. We talked about the balance between the Executive and the Judiciary, we talked about fast versus slow processes in the Courts. But really, what is this issue about? The issue is that we really have a serious threat from online falsehoods.

Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean in the Members' lounge was just telling me that when he was young, he remembered when the racial riots were happening, there was a big headline on The Straits Times saying "Stop Rumour Mongering" because that was fuelling the riots. Real public harm. Just imagine today, with the tools in the hands of people with malicious intent, it is one thousand times easier to come up with a falsehood. It will spread thousands of times faster. Thousands of times broader and wider. Thousands of times more serious impact. This is what we are really dealing with.

First, let me reiterate, the two gates through which any falsehood must pass before it can be corrected or removed by this Bill. One, what is put up online must be a statement of fact that is false. Two, it must cause public harm. When these two gates are crossed, then the falsehood may be corrected or removed by a "Direction". "Directions" are not criminal punishments. It is just a Correction. Let us put things in perspective here, all that we are debating about concerning the powers of Ministers, it is the power to initiate a correction of an online falsehood that has gone viral and has public harm. That is what we are debating about.

For there to be criminal liability, a third gate has to be crossed, which is that the propagator of the falsehood must have knowledge that it is false and it is harmful. So, there is malicious intent. That is for the Ministers and the Ministries to justify, prosecutors to initiate and the Courts to decide on the verdict.

What kind of online activities would pass the two gates? Let me give a few examples. I was thinking that I can cut down on the examples because I expected many Members to be to be citing many, but given the examples I am hearing, let us get back to what are the examples we are talking about.

Two years ago in Germany, there was a report that a mob of 50 "Arab-looking" men, assaulted women on New Year’s Eve in downtown Frankfurt. The story went viral. But when the German police investigated, they found no evidence of this mysterious assault. The newspaper eventually conceded that the attacks described in the article did not take place, they apologised and took down the article from all its platforms. But more people had read and remembered the falsehood in the original article than the clarification. The damage was done; public sentiments shifted, society becomes more tense, political discourse altered.

We are familiar with Brexit, during the campaign on the referendum, a falsehood was going around that Turkey was going to join the EU and Britain would be flooded with immigrants from Turkey. The falsehood might have well affected the outcome of the referendum and the fate of the United Kingdom.

It will get worse as technology continues to advance. You can now use AI to make fake videos of a real person – "deep fakes". Mr Vikram Khanna wrote about it in The Straits Times today. You can just google "Obama deepfake" and you will find a video of the former US President – I tried, I found it – delivering a speech with swear words and all, which he, of course, did not make. You can also find a deep fake video of President Donald Trump telling an audience in Belgium that they should to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, a speech which he did not make.

But you do not even need to deploy sophisticated technology to spread false information. In 1998, Dr Andrew Wakefield published a controversial study that linked the MMR vaccine, which protects against measles, mumps and rubella, to autism. It circulated widely. Although the study has been totally debunked, it helped fuel a dangerous movement of vaccine scepticism and refusal around the world. It was later discovered that Wakefield had falsified the data and had been paid by lawyers involved in an MMR lawsuit. The paper was retracted only in 2010, 10 years after its publication. The paper remains severely harmful as children who are unvaccinated could lose their lives.

Deliberate lies, connivance, impersonations, incitement of unrest and societal anger and turmoil. This is what we are dealing with. This is the world of online falsehoods and manipulations that this Bill is targeting. In contrast, what is research? It is about experiments, gathering data, testing hypotheses, publishing findings, discovering how the world works and having work reviewed by peers and following a strict discipline and a strict process.

We should distinguish between two kinds of research. The first kind is an empirical-based approach to understanding how the world and nature works. This is what researchers are doing in A*STAR, and in faculties such as engineering and medicine in our Universities. They are figuring out how the human genome works, finding new cures for diseases, ways to cut down carbon emission, developing new materials for building and bridges, inventing new models with new AI technology and algorithms to have sharper predictive powers.

In all these fields, scientists are questioning truths all the time. It is an endless quest for knowledge, where our understanding of nature and life are constantly proven and then unproven. Newton’s laws of motion, which used to be widely accepted, are proven now to be only partially true. Scientists have also proven that time, which we used to believe it is constant, actually can be stretched, it can be compressed, it can be bent.

One branch of empirically-based research is data science. I recently came across a book called Kiasunomics written by three NUS researchers. It is a popular version of a series of papers they have published. They gathered vast amount of data – including getting a lot of data from Government departments and agencies – and tested many hypotheses. They found that after the removal of the KTM Railway, the price of HDB flats around the railway line went up significantly. They found out that yellow taxis have fewer accidents than blue taxis. Households use more water when there was haze and so on. They went on to explain why. It is very possible that one day, someone may gather more data and refute their findings.

Does that mean POFMA will "criminalise" those researchers whose discoveries and theories were proven wrong or partially true? So, will Newton be caught by POFMA because his laws are now only partially true? Or the three authors of Kiasunomics will be persecuted if one day, if blue taxis have more accidents than yellow taxis? Or will POFMA "criminalise" research that is trying to disprove a theory or a body of knowledge that is already well-established?

The answer is no. That is simply not the business of POFMA. Any attempts to apply POFMA to empirically-based, natural sciences research, will fail at the first gate I mentioned. There are two gates; it will fail at the first gate. At the first gate, you ask, "Is there falsehood?" No, because researchers used real data and observations to draw their conclusions. Even if the data may not be accurate because the experiment was not well conducted, the data collected is not reproducible or incomplete, there is no falsehood as defined by POFMA.

One Member mentioned that, 15 years ago, two labour economists got into trouble because they used partial data and concluded nine out of 10 jobs in Singapore went to foreigners. So, now, let us apply POFMA's two gates to this case. First gate, was there falsehood? There was none. They used real data, it was not falsehood. The real data was incomplete but they did not fabricate the data. Second, was there public harm? I do not think there was any harm such as riots, or very heightened tensions. It will fail at both gates. Incidentally, after I heard that speech, I did a check on the two academics, both of them are still teaching in LKY's School of Public Policy and I understand they are now both Singaporeans. They applied for citizenship after the incident.

Second gate, is there public harm? I do not believe good, honest research can cause public harm.

I have talked about the first type of research. The second type of research is based on opinion, philosophy, interpretation of history, cultural bias, geographical context and so on. This is mainly practised as a strand of researchers in the humanities. Instead of empirical data, they use methods that are primarily critical and interpretive to substantiate their hypotheses and arguments.

I enjoyed reading the books of an author called Yuval Noah Harari. He is an Israeli historian and a tenured professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His two bestselling books Sapiens and Homo Deus, I read both of them, he cites some empirical findings, but most of all, he describes his deductions, thoughts and opinions. He gave his take on the origins and purpose of religion in holding complex societies together. He has an expansionary definition of religion that many will find offensive actually, and he postulated that humans will achieve near immortality and God-like powers, not too far into the future.

Some of the works of humanities scholars, like Yuval Noah Harari, can be controversial, highly debatable, even offensive to some. But they cannot be subject to POFMA. In fact, they would not even reach the two gates of POFMA. Their conclusions are in the form of hypotheses, theories and opinions that are not covered by the Bill. I am sure Minister Shanmugam will explain why and how. This Bill is about truthfulness of "facts" – did the men really assault the women, did the President really give that speech, was Turkey really joining the EU? Those were the statements of facts that concern POFMA.

Let me wrap up this section of my speech and I have to talk about Galileo – cannot resist – which quite a few Members talked about it. Actually, it is an excellent case study of how research upset conventional wisdom. I want to talk about how he was treated then and how he would be treated today under POFMA should such research happen today. Of course, today we know that the Earth goes round the Sun. But at that time, the belief was that the Sun goes round the Earth and it was an important concept central to the power of the Church and the Roman authorities.

Galileo wanted to prove the reverse. So, he built his own telescope. He spent many lonely days and nights staring into the sky, collected data and proved that it is the other way round, that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

But despite his empirical methods, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira talked about the Inquisition, so his challenge was not kindly taken by the Roman authorities. Other astronomers came up with their observations and data to prove that the Sun indeed revolved around the Earth. He was sentenced to indefinite imprisonment and kept under house arrest until his death.

What if something like that were to happen today, involving a question to which we have no answers, or we thought we had an answer, and a researcher comes up with something that challenges deeply held views or shared reality, as Assoc Prof Theseira mentioned?

In our context, I can assure the House, that if it is empirical research, we will stay true to science and empirical evidence. We have always been, sometimes to a fault. And if it is an opinion-based research, we will have a vigorous public debate. Under both scenarios, POFMA does not apply in such a discourse.

The only way POFMA comes in is if the research uses false observations and data to start with, you fabricated the data, which prevents public discourse from taking place properly. In which case, such work I do not think it can pass the academic and professional standards of any decent university or research institute.

Mr Speaker, Sir, research that challenges conventional wisdom and shared belief is happening as we speak, in ways, I think, more significant than when Galileo was working on the Sun and the Earth. Quantum scientists have discovered that a very small particle can appear at two or more places at the same time until you look at it. So it is a bit mind-boggling. You are not really there until I look at you. The score of the football match is not four-zero until I look at it. So, it did not really happen. That is too simplistic a way to put it, but they are questioning reality as we know it.

In economics, the post Global Financial Crisis debate continues, on the efficacy of fiscal, monetary policies and quantitative easing. Researchers are questioning the causal relationship between unemployment and the skills gap, and if a nation’s success should also include measures beyond GDP to include ecological sustainability and social equity. So, big questions are undergoing research now.

These works challenge existing beliefs in far more profound ways than any memes, blog post, video, opinion piece in the newspapers shared online, which is the practical focus of POFMA. These research are on-going, welcomed and embraced. If any of our researchers make such a breakthrough in our understanding of the world, rather than being persecuted, as Mr Cedric Foo said, they are more likely to be celebrated and maybe even accorded a National Day award! This Government will always honour empirical and evidence-based research.

Let me try to address what I think some of the academics are really concerned about. I may be wrong, but I do not think it is about research. They are worried that POFMA will be used to stifle political discourse in Singapore. Because not all researchers are just researchers; most researchers may also be activists. Nothing wrong with that. But it is in their activist role that some of these academics are voicing their concerns about POFMA.

So, there is a request for an explicit carve-out for opinions, criticisms, satires and so on, in the Bill. I want to point out that we cannot conflate research with activism. I read a Facebook post by Dr Derek da Cunha and I thought he put it very well. He observed that some academics "spend every other week banging away on the subject online and offline because his or her motivation is to effect change. This isn’t even a case of any contentiousness over what is, or is not, the 'truth'."

He added, "Instead, it brings up the question: what is the appropriate role of an academic? Any contention that academics should not adhere to boundaries or parameters, but such boundaries or parameters should exist for everyone else, might be an unreasonable proposition."

The same point was made by a Straits Times Forum letter writer who asked "Where is the line between exercising academic freedom to pursue truth and wisdom, and hiding behind academic freedom to fulfil partisan political and socio-economic agendas? Does having academic freedom mean one has carte blanche to communicate irresponsibly and without credible evidence?"

Let me put it quite plainly. Any activist will not be caught by POFMA if you express an opinion or even hurl criticisms at the Government. The law treats all activists equally – whether you are an academic or a man or woman on the street. It does not target academics. You are as free as an ordinary citizen to comment on current affairs or critique the Government.

Conversely, any activist – whether you are an academic or a man or woman on the street – who uses the online medium to spread falsehoods and harm society, will come under POFMA. POFMA offers no special shield to academics either.

But the law aside, in this era of free-for-all communications and interactions, public discourse is becoming more rigorous. Here is where things may get a little bit different for academics.

Academics are well-respected members of society. We hold academics to "conduct professorial" – high standards of integrity, in their teaching, their research, and the validity of their views put forward in public. This is especially so when they speak or make social media posts on current affairs while bearing the title of a professor in a publicly-funded university.

So, you can put out an opinion that Singapore’s growth model has failed. You can say meritocracy in Singapore has failed. You can say the education system is elitist, our social welfare does not work and it does more harm than good. POFMA will not apply to you because that is your opinion. But in the interest of open debate and given your stature in society and position in a publicly funded university, please expect Government agencies, if we do not agree with you, to put out the data and put out our arguments to convince the public otherwise. If that has a chilling effect, please chill.

The same and, perhaps, even higher expectations apply to my Cabinet colleagues and I. Whatever we say needs to be well thought out, set the tone for society, and be in the best interest of our people. Today, if anyone of us puts forward a view in a speech, during a dialogue or in an Instagram or Facebook post, and if the public does not agree with us, they will speak up and give us a piece of their mind. And we have to consider those views and re-evaluate our position. The interaction will get more active and rigorous. It is part and parcel of modern governance. When it comes to our decisions and actions, the scrutiny will be even more intense.

We want this interaction and exchange of ideas and opinions to be free of malicious falsehoods which poison the atmosphere and mislead the discourse. POFMA enhances, and not diminishes, democratic public discourse. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Speaker, Sir, I shall continue my speech in Mandarin.

Fake news has been in existence since ancient times. For example, during the Jin Dynasty in China, the Qin army from the north sent their troops south to attack Eastern Jin. As the two troops battled at the Fei River, the troops from Eastern Jin suggested for the Qin troops to move back, to allow the Jin troops to cross the river, so that the two troops could battle to the death. As the vanguards of the Qin army moved back, Jin soldiers who had infiltrated this group started shouting: "The Qin army has lost! The Qin army has lost!" Amazingly, the Qin troops believed these words and thought that the command to move backwards was a sign of defeat. This led to a sharp drop in the Qin troops' morale, eventually resulting in the Qin army’s defeat and retreat.

The Qin army was filled with anxiety and panic, and every movement in the surrounding plants made them suspect that it was the Jin army lying in ambush. That was how the Chinese Idiom "草木皆兵Cao Mu Jie Bing" (every plant is an enemy soldier) came about. There can never be too much deceit in times of war – this has been so since ancient times; falsehoods have been used to affect the emotions of societies and people.

Singapore is no exception. However, the falsehoods of today are different from those of the past. Firstly, the channels of falsehoods have increased: through the Internet and the widespread usage of mobile devices. Secondly, the speed of spreading falsehoods has increased: a survey on social media conducted by MIT found that falsehoods can reach 20,000 individuals in a day, but facts and the truth can only reach 10,000 in three days. That is, falsehoods can spread six times faster than the truth. Thirdly, falsehoods have also become more destructive.

Three years ago, during the United Kingdom's referendum on exiting the European Union (that is, Brexit), the Internet was flooded with falsehoods, such as "Turkey is becoming part of the EU, which will cause large numbers of immigrants to enter the UK." Such intentional spread of falsehoods aimed to mislead the voters and affect the voting results.

Apart from politics, falsehoods can disrupt the everyday lives of people. Eight years ago, when Northeast Japan was hit by a massive earthquake which damaged a nuclear power plant, there was a rumour circulating on social media that salt could guard against radiation exposure. This caused people to rush to the supermarkets and buy all the available salt supplies.

Nearer to home, in 2017, there was a rumour that a hawker in Geylang was selling satay made of dog and cat meat. In the same year, there were also accusations that some local supermarkets were selling rice made of plastic. Fortunately, there were timely clarifications for these two incidents and they did not lead to more panic and hysteria.

As technology advances, this problem will worsen. In recent years, artificial intelligence has developed the "Deepfake" capability, in which computers can be used to combine and superimpose existing images and videos and mimic a person's actions and speech. Such fabrication has frightening risks and implications. China has decided to ban the use of "Deepfake" technology.

We cannot stop the advancement of technology, but neither can we evade the problems that come along with it. We have the responsibility to find solutions to rectify these problems. This Bill has clear goals and defined boundaries. For each of the examples I mentioned, the Bill can be used to request online platforms or media companies to issue corrections. Legal action can then be taken against those who spread such falsehoods with malicious intent.

There are academics who worry that the Bill will stifle freedom of speech or even hamper academic research – there is no need to worry. The Bill is only applicable to the examples mentioned; covering facts, and not opinions. Unless the research paper made use of falsified data or falsehoods, there is no need to worry.

Furthermore, the Bill targets the writers of fake news and not the people who spread it. So, there is no need to worry about inadvertently sharing mistaken information. However, I hope that everyone can be vigilant at all times and verify the information they receive, before sharing them with family and friends.

In summary, there is actually nothing new under the sun but, in this Internet era, strange things seem to be surfacing all the time. This Bill may only have an effect on a small amount of falsehoods out there, but I believe that the falsehoods that it targets are those that pose the greatest danger and have negative impact.

Globally, falsehoods have already negatively impacted many democratic systems and the lives of people. The greater reason for tabling this Bill is to safeguard the lives of our people against such threats.

( In English ): Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that online falsehoods have affected election and referendum results, twisted public sentiments, heightened public tensions, societal tensions and altered the political discourse. A big worry of the modern world is whether democracy can withstand this onslaught. And indeed, this is a major challenge of our times.

Today, the odds are stacked against those of us who are trying to uphold institutions – all of us in this House. The balance of power is asymmetrical, heavily weighted in favour of those with malicious intentions. It is far easier to make a sensational falsehood viral, than a technical correction. It is far easier to use bots to spread falsehoods, than to use a speech and use traditional media coverage.

I give you an example. In the recent shooting in New Zealand, the shooter had a live Facebook feed for 17 minutes. Let us juxtapose that video against the standards under POFMA. Is there public harm, as a second gate? Definitely. Did the perpetrator possess knowledge of the harm, as a third gate? Certainly. Is there falsehood? There is not. For it was live; it was what took place. So, POFMA cannot enforce a takedown of this feed. In the end, it was taken down, not by the force of law, but by Facebook itself under a lot of pressure.

Relative to the explosion of online capabilities that is now presented to those with malicious intent, the ambit of this law is not large. When online falsehoods are perpetrated, it only gives the Government legislative powers for a surgical and judicious insertion of additional facts, through a Correction order. And that is as far as executive powers of Ministers go. It is not the omnipresent, draconian, nuclear weapon, infinity gauntlet snap that some people make it out to be.

While small, POFMA is a necessary response to this tectonic technological change, to protect democratic public discourse which we cherish.

Let me raise one last point. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira talked about the need for shared reality for any society and acknowledged the need for that. For democracy and constructive discourse to work, there must be a common understanding of the underlying facts of the country – what happened and what did not. And I am glad that the Member acknowledged that.

Some of these facts shape the character and common ethos of a nation. Today, the understanding of shared reality, with Science and History, is no longer like the 17th century. I think we have a large body of scientific evidence and we have a good record of history. It is no longer like Galileo's time.

So, in Germany, the Holocaust happened. The Germans had lived under a dark period of Nazism, and that is an undeniable fact. Denying it is actually illegal in Germany. In China, the May Fourth Movement happened 100 years ago. The Revolution of 1949 happened. And those events shaped modern China. The US liberated the slaves and went through a devastating civil war. That happened. In Singapore, we are a small, multi-cultural island state. We faced Communist threats and were thrusted into independence. Those events happened.

Today, researchers continue to study and interpret those events: what caused them, what they represented, what is their impact today. But they cannot deny that they happened and continue to shape the character and psyche of societies today.

A society that holds onto certain truths is a social necessity, a binding force in politics, and a pre-requisite for civil discussions. Lose these and the country loses part of its soul. Otherwise, democracy becomes a marketplace of merchants peddling forgeries. Only by holding onto certain truths, are we able to continue to collectively identify the issues that are important to us, the options and paths we can take, and decide the way forward, without the lies and without the manipulations.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira said this is a vote of conscience. It is indeed a vote of conscience because look at the tectonic shifts that we are faced with. Technology has fundamentally changed society, changed the political discourse. It is changing politics and modern society as we know it. All governments around the world need new rules, new laws and new mechanisms to deal with this tectonic change. It is a vote of conscience. Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you. [ Applause. ]

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

5.52 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Speaker, I have one clarification for Minister Ong Ye Kung. Earlier, in his speech, he referred to the case which I cited about the two economies 15 years ago. And according to his analysis, he mentioned that in order to qualify as an actionable POFMA untruth, there are two gates to pass. And his assessment was that in that scenario, gate one was not passed because there was no falsehood to begin with.

If I recall the facts of that case, the economists have relied on some data which later the Government said was incomplete and they had asserted based on the data that out of four jobs that was created, only one job went to a Singapore resident and three jobs went to the intake of foreigners. So, I am wanting some clarifications because when you look at that statement alone about job creation, it appears on one reading to be an assertion of fact which later on, the Government came to correct and said it is not correct. In actual fact, out of 10 jobs, nine went to residents. And one reading of POFMA, it could be argued that gate one has been passed because there is an assertion of some facts which are not correct. And gate two, possibly may be passed as well because this may diminish confidence in the Government in job creation.

So, I would like the Minister to clarify again, which is very helpful, I think, earlier, but I think we need more explanation about how he sees the case and why POFMA would not apply. Does it mean that if researchers conclude facts based on incomplete data, that would not come under the POFMA even though factually, it has to be corrected?

Mr Ong Ye Kung: Yes. I got your point. I am prepared to explain this and have it recorded in the Hansard. Their conclusion that most of the jobs went to foreigners, that is the conclusion of the study. What they based that conclusion on, was on data, although incomplete, was not fabricated. It was not falsified. So, there was no falsification and no falsehood involved. And as for the conclusion that most jobs went to foreigners – that was their conclusion and their opinion which is also not part of POFMA. So, so long as researchers abide by research discipline, I do not see how they can be caught by POFMA unless they fabricated data.

Mr Speaker: Prof Lim Sun Sun.

Prof Lim Sun Sun: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his effort to assure the academic community. I just have one point of clarification as well as some feedback.

In the first instance, I think the Minister mentioned the distinction between the empirical disciplines as well as humanities which he said is not so empirical but is interpretive and critical. So, I do not think my Humanities and Social Science colleagues will forgive me if I let you get away with saying Humanities and Social Science research is not empirical. So, that would just be a point of clarification.

The second point actually relates to the use of the term "public harm" which I think at this point in the discussion is somewhat confusing because we have actually been discussing the Bill which uses the term "public interest". So, I think that that may actually create more issues of contention because there is a great deal of academic research that while being of public interest may not necessarily generate public harm.

The third point is actually to deal with hon Member Dr Intan's suggestion that we should actually set up in Universities, possibly, committees that actually help us to review whether or not these are actually falsehoods that have been made by academics perhaps unwittingly, and that these committees can help to advise the Ministers. While on the one hand I am sympathetic to that argument as a fellow academic, on the other hand, I think the very establishment as well as existence of such committees will, in fact, seem to underline the lack of academic freedom which I think would be an unhealthy signal to send.

Mr Ong Ye Kung: First, being a quantitative economist myself, I very much welcome the Humanities to use more data and empirical evidence. That is one. Two, on the Member's point on public interest versus public harm is taken. I have given some illustrations of what I think is the measure of public harm before POFMA kicks in, and I am sure my colleagues will clarify the concept further.

Third, on committees to decide what are falsehoods within Universities. I think they already exist because the entire discipline of doing good research, comprising peer review, academic committees and so on, already make sure that all academics do their work properly using proper data, do not fabricate data, do not fabricate facts. When you stick to that, I do not see how POFMA will catch you.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister. I am going to drag you back to the 2003 example. The reason why I am doing that is because I think it is still kind of fresh in the minds of many academics in Singapore about how we interface with society and with the state. And I should declare that I am an NUS professor.

Let me seek two clarifications. The first one is: I am not so sure that the characterisation that what the two economists said would not have come under POFMA because there was some kind of correction that was done in 2003. And I am going to just read off the Channel NewsAsia article which quotes Minister of Manpower then, Dr Ng Eng Hen who said, "If your figures are wrong, it is irresponsible, unprofessional to put up those figures. In this particular case, the NTU report, their findings are way off the mark. I do not know how they got their figures and what their methods are", said Dr Ng. And he added that, "The NTU academics had not consulted the Manpower Ministry or the Department of Statistics." So, that is as good as a correction, I think, in a pre-POFMA era. And after that, there was a big controversy and the issue blew up and all the academics knew that these two academics were being corrected by Minister. It was a "high level rebuke". That was the phrase that was used in the media article.

And my second clarification is that, I can appreciate, the Minister's more open view about academic research because he is the Minister for Education. This is his domain expertise. But here, as in this case with the labour economists, they were commenting on something that has to do, in terms of public interest and has to do with the Ministry of Manpower. So, the Minister of Manpower reacts to their remarks, right? So, it is a different Ministry that is involved in evaluating the academic research. So, is this going to be a kind of blanket rule or norm within the Cabinet, that when it comes to academics, consult the Minister for Education first.

Mr Ong Ye Kung: I have no intention to re-open the 2003 case and go through the data to see whether there is any falsified data. I think that is the past. But it is obvious that the Manpower Minister then did not agree with the conclusion of the research report. That does not equal to it being caught under POFMA today. That is why I differentiated between research and activism; that, even when POFMA does not apply to research, please expect us, if we do not agree with the outcome, to present other data, present our arguments and try to correct public perceptions, and try to convince the public otherwise.

That is political discourse. It cannot be that just because it is a research piece, we all have to shut up. It is not in the spirit of POFMA, nor the political discourse that we want.

On the point that I am Minister for Education so I am slightly more open whether all these cases concerning research will go through me, I think it should have my inputs, based on how the law is written today. But based on the Workers' Party's suggestion, I am afraid the decisions will all go to the Courts.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Thank you, Speaker. First, really, let me congratulate the Minister for Education on that speech. I really think we should actually send it out to all our academics because I think it was a really good policy statement, besides POFMA.

Just one clarification. I think we all accept the need for the Government to rebut robustly research it does not agree with, whether from academics or activists. What I am concerned about – which I talked a bit in my speech earlier – is that there has been a trend sometimes of Ministries using language in their rebuttal that implies falsehood. I think when you look at the details of the case, it is not always the case for all of these, that there is really a dispute about the facts. Sometimes, it is more about the conclusion. And I would hope that he would have some views on, maybe asking his colleagues or Ministries to tighten up a bit in their language, so that people do not inadvertently think things are false when they are actually not.

Mr Ong Ye Kung: I take your point. That is one value of this discourse that we have in this Chamber, that we are now a lot more careful in defining what is a disagreement and what is a falsehood. I think this law crystallised it. And we should be more disciplined in future.

Mr Speaker: Mr Mohamed Irshad.

6.02 pm

Mr Mohamed Irshad (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, after two years in the making, the POFMA Bill is timely, in light of global events and trends we are witnessing today. The tabling of the Bill comes after regulatory moves around the world such as Germany, France and, more recently, Australia. This Bill is comprehensive, well considered, globally researched, and above all, publicly consulted and reviewed. The Bill commendably sets out to protect Singaporeans in a highly polarised world against the threat of online falsehood.

As highlighted by the hon Minister, globally, we are witnessing countries grappling with the problem of online falsehoods which aims to do many things, including interfering in elections as well as democratic processes, undermining public institutions, exploiting fault lines, sowing discord amongst racial and religious communities and ultimately weakening countries through national security threats – both real and imagined.

Therefore, it is important that we do not politicise the Bill and make sure that we take an objective stand. The Bill is one that is of immense significance to safeguard Singapore's future, especially in today's world where there is an overload of information on a multitude of platforms that threatens to undermine much of our traditional forms of communication and reliable information sources.

Today, I wish to speak on two areas in relation to the proposed Bill: number one, safeguarding racial and religious harmony; and secondly, on technological trends in disseminating online falsehood.

On safeguarding racial and religious harmony. Last year, I presented at the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods (DOFs) representing my interfaith non-profit organisation Roses of Peace. I shared that given the destructive force of online falsehood in the digital age, it has the potential to exploit our social fault lines and can undermine our social cohesion. If not countered, it can erode the multi-racial and multi-religious fabric of our society and our forefathers who have fought to achieve this and preserve this.

There needs to be a clear action of plan involving a whole-of-nation effort to combat online falsehoods or fake news. As the hon Minister for Law and Home Affairs had described in his Select Committee public hearing last year, tackling fake news will require a multi-pronged approach which takes into consideration effective legislation and Government policy, as well as efforts by corporations, non-profit organisations, religious organisations, civil society and ordinary citizens.

It is important for ordinary citizens to be equipped with the knowledge and tools to discern and deal with fake news. Only when individuals are able to take ownership and understand the consequence of deliberate online falsehoods, are we able to safeguard our social well-being and be a more resilient society.

Mr Speaker, allow me to share several examples of online falsehoods manifesting in inciting real world violence.

In 2014, Myanmar witnessed two days of violence leaving two dead and dozens injured with mosques being burned. It was caused by a falsehood from a Buddhist woman who was paid to make false rape claims against two Muslim brothers.

In 2016, 12 Buddhist temples in northern Sumatra of Indonesia were plundered and burned down by a Muslim mob in 24 hours with billions of rupiah in losses. Again, it was caused by a falsehood that a Chinese woman had complained about noise from a mosque threw items at it, expelled the prayer leader and disrupted prayers.

Just last year, in 2018, Sri Lanka witnessed widespread ethnic violence with mosques burned, people attacked and the government declaring a State of Emergency and temporarily banning social media platforms. It is the result of falsehood. The falsehood insinuated that the Muslim minority were trying to sterilise the Sinhalese majority.

More recently, the tragic mosque shooting in Christchurch was socially engineered for virality and maximum reach via live-streaming. The video was viewed just less than 200 times during the live broadcast. No users reported the video during the live broadcast. Including the views during the live broadcast, the video was viewed about 4,000 times in total before being removed from Facebook.

However, according to Facebook, in the first 24 hours, it was removed about 1.5 million times, copies of this video of the attack of the attack globally. More than 1.2 million of those videos were blocked at upload and were therefore prevented from being seen on their services.

What I have just outlined above are serious and quick adverse consequences of viral and false information. We would be naïve to assume that Singapore would be immune to this. Therefore, when one considers what is the right decision-making body, to move quickly to counter-act the effects and spread of false information, speed and effectiveness must be paramount. That is precisely what the Select Committee, with representation from both sides of the House, had accepted.

I believe, in circumstances where false information is undermining Singapore's public interest, it is the Executive which should be empowered to act. They can do so swiftly and decisively to protect Singaporeans against such falsehoods.

A 2014 analysis by the Pew Research Centre found Singapore to be the world's most religiously diverse nation. Despite our diversity, Singapore has enjoyed peace and religious harmony for over 50 years since independence. Hence, we cannot take any chances and take the stability and security we enjoy for granted.

On technological trends in disseminating online falsehood. In today's world, online falsehoods are weaponised to be used against countries by state and non-state actors. The online information space and the social media are a key battlefield in a new conception of warfare. Now there is no need for war to be declared with the blurring of boundaries between wartime and peacetime. New dynamics brought about by technological advancements is an area of concern for any Governments looking to legislation to combat online falsehood.

Justice ministers in three German states have proposed using anti-botnet legislation to crack down on automated social-media accounts, or "bots", which spread online falsehood. Botnets are suspected to have engineered voter sentiments during recent events such as the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum and the 2016 US elections. As technology is always ahead of regulations, we should develop the ability to respond swiftly and robustly before they can cause harm to Singaporeans.

In an information-rich world, the most effective response to disinformation is literacy. As highlighted by the hon Education Minister, media literacy is essential for end users to be able to spot obvious fakes. In future, artificial-intelligence-powered solutions may help us distinguish high quality news sources and content from bogus ones, and even spot potential political motivations behind the propagation of certain news.

One area of concern I would like to raise in this house is the issue of deep fakes which will increasingly become a problem, as highlighted by the Minister earlier. Political speech and even imagery can easily be manipulated at low cost and with professional quality. In order to successfully tackle the problem, I urge the Government to keep an eye out for emerging disruptive technologies such as deep learning and generative adversarial networks (GANs), which make it possible to manipulate images and videos so well that it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish false from authentic ones. In fact, apps like FakeApp and Lyrebird have made the production of "deep fakes" accessible to anyone.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, it is very difficult to write a Bill like POFMA. It needs to be comprehensive and extremely well considered if we are to protect Singaporeans as well as their rights to freedom of choice in the digital age. I am confident that the Government will place peace, harmony and safety of Singapore at its heart and do the best as Singaporeans and for Singaporeans and be counted upon to steward these considerable powers in a fair, consistent and thoughtful manner – consistent with our democratic values and our duty to protect Singaporeans from the ill effects of online falsehoods. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

6.12 pm

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the aim to protect Singapore from deliberate online falsehoods that could undermine the democratic foundations of our society is acceptable and good. But this POFMA Bill gives the government of the day massive targeted powers that go far beyond this remit and is therefore not acceptable and not good for Singapore in the long run.

It has been said POFMA balances the right and utility of responsible free speech with the necessity for speedy action to prevent the subversion of society in the informational age. I disagree. In my view, this Bill is severely imbalanced.

Speed is a key premise for POFMA. Speed is distance over time, and the Government has chosen to maximise speed, giving itself great powers to cross vast distances in a short amount of time.

But this need for speed can have severe detrimental effects for the society, and the state itself, if it is not properly checked. I shall deal with three issues: one, the problem with the definition of falsehoods in the hands of the Executive; two, the problem with the Government defending public confidence in the Government itself by force; and three, the Government choosing between a legacy and a Trojan Horse.

Ministers deciding on facts and falsehoods. The first issue concerns the definition of falsehoods in this Bill. The definition in section 2 is double-barrelled. First, a falsehood has to be a statement of fact. Subsection 2(a) states that "a statement of fact is a statement which a reasonable person seeing, hearing or otherwise perceiving it would consider to be a representation of fact". This definition rests on the figure of the reasonable person. I just want to note a paradox here. As elaborated by the Minister for Law in his opening speech, the problem we face today is that online falsehoods have undermined public discourse and eroded precisely this figure of the reasonable person.

Whether a statement is a fact or is an opinion goes to the heart of this piece of legislation, as it provides the scope for which statements would be covered by this law. If the reasonable person does not quite exist anymore, how do we determine if a statement is indeed a statement of fact and not an opinion? The fact that the Minister for Law had to go to great lengths to clarify with detailed examples on what are statements of fact and what are statements of opinion show that this distinction between fact and opinion has significantly blurred in public discourse.

It is well and fine if a statement of fact is an established matter in jurisprudence, but we are talking about placing the powers in the Executive here. If the reasonable person in the juridical definition of the statement of fact has indeed faded away, how would the Executive, specifically the Ministers, being not the Judiciary steeped in matters of jurisprudence, be able to distinguish between a statement of fact and a statement of opinion in a speedy manner?

This is an important issue, since a wrong application of a correction directive on a statement of opinion can be a miscarriage of justice and even affect electoral results. Ministers have to be extremely cautious even at the first step of the process, to determine whether a statement is a statement of fact or a statement of opinion. The only resolution I can see is that Ministers will have to consult the Minister for Law on this determination and this would take time. Perhaps as much time as it would ought have taken to decide on a Correction order.

Let me come now to the second part of the definition of falsehoods, which has itself four sub-parts to it. Sub-section 2(b) states that, "a statement is false if it is false" – that sounds a bit tautological but I think it can stand – "false or misleading, whether wholly or in part, and whether on its own or in the context in which it appears". The definition of falsehoods should be simply based on fact. A fact is something that is known to be true because of existing information or proven to be so by current evidence. Conversely, a statement of fact is false when it can be shown to be not true by information or evidence, whether existing or new. To add the term "misleading" here is dangerous, as it opens up the judgement of truth to multiple interpretations of connotations and implications.

Furthermore, how can we justifiably and reasonably make people responsible for part of their statements and for statements taken out of context? By this definition, a statement can become misleading by virtue of being interpreted in the worst possible way, whether wholly or in part, whether on its own or in context. So, does this mean that the Government can take a statement I make, quote a part of it out of context, choose the worst of all the possible interpretations of the partial statement taken out of context, and then accuse me for misleading the public on a matter of public interest?

Public confidence is earned not enforced by the Government. The second issue has to do with the meaning of “public interest” in section 4. I have little quibble with the list of areas (a), (b), (c) and (e). I have reservations about (d) with regards to elections but I will focus on (f). I object to (f) which has to do with public confidence in the performance of the Government.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: Sub-section (f) is worded as "to prevent a diminution of public confidence in the performance of any duty or function of, or in the exercise of any power by, the Government, an Organ of State, a statutory board, or a part of the Government, an Organ of State or a statutory board". I would like to ask which part of life in Singapore is not covered by this incredibly sweeping sub-definition of public interest? This sub-definition makes any disputed statement of fact that merely risks reducing some public confidence in the performance of any action by just a part of the Government and statutory boards liable to this law. This is practically any statement of fact critical of the Government.

Other than take-downs for posts that endanger our national security, foreign relations, racial and religious harmony, public safety, why is there a need for speed for all Ministers – all Ministers – to impose corrections on alleged falsehoods about the performance of the Government? Where is the sense of proportionality here? I am not saying that the Government should not act to clarify and correct widespread falsehoods that could undermine public confidence in our public institutions. I am saying that I do not see the need for speed to force a correction, as the current supposedly slow practices of correcting falsehoods already work to great effect.

Let me give two examples. The first is the case at the beginning of this year when there was a public online furore over claims that the Government had quietly raised the CPF payout eligibility age from 65 to 70 years old. This arose from a misunderstanding arising from the setting of the automatic payouts at age 70 instead of 65. I believe the automatic payouts should be set at the payout eligibility age, but that is my opinion. But factually, it was false that the Government quietly raised the payout eligibility age. This was corrected by the Government by press statements and parliamentary answers by the Minister for Manpower in response to questions from Members, which was then carried by the media. This falsehood spurred the Government to redouble their public education efforts, producing good materials to educate the public on the policies, which effectively dispelled the falsehood.

The second is the recent case accusing the Police of preferential treatment for letting off a male undergraduate for filming a woman in the shower in a NUS Hall of Residence because the student’s parents were well-connected to powerful people. This example was also cited by the Minister for Law in his speech moving the Bill. An objective press statement by the Police setting out the facts dispelled the falsehood. As a result, many were chastised by fellow online citizens for spreading baseless assumptions. Furthermore, the way the Police went about dispelling the falsehood earned praise from the public, as the Police respected the privacy of the offender and obtained permission from his family to reveal their background. Again, supposedly slow methods worked effectively.

These two examples show us that public confidence in the performance of the Government has to be earned and cannot be enforced. In these two examples, the Government is engaging Singaporeans as a partner in conversation. In these two examples, the Government is not arbitrating truths ex cathedra, using its authority to force corrections and threaten mistaken citizens with punishment. Instead, it is calmly explaining the facts and issuing additional information so that public confidence can be restored and even improved. There is no need for speed. In fact, timeliness and proportionality are key here, not speed. In fact, the responses from the Government was not slow at all, and it was not hasty too. It was timely. No need for speed.

Times have changed. The online public dwells in an information-rich environment and has its own norms and etiquette in engaging with debate and discussion. Trust in the Government is no longer built on the good performance of its duties alone, but on communication and public engagement by the Government. Educated citizens want to be engaged as peers by the Government. As such, the Government acting as a party in contentious politics with the online public will erode public confidence in the Government in the long run. Giving the Ministers and by extension the Civil Service, the powers to force corrections create an easy and speedy way out from the hard work they should be doing instead, which is earning their trust through time-consuming but ultimately fruitful engagement with the public. I do not understand why the Government would want to protect their Ministers from the test of fire of public reason.

Leave a legacy not a Trojan Horse. I now come to the third issue, which represent the Workers' Party's fundamental objection to the Bill. This law is an important one because it will set the tone for generations to come. I believe, as do my Workers' Party colleagues, that it is best to leave the arbitration of truths to the courts and not have the Executive of the Government sullied in mud-fights with the public over falsehoods, and worse, leave Singapore society wide open to abuses by a thin-skinned Executive protecting its own institutional interests. We believe that the Courts should be the place to arbitrate truths and correct falsehoods, because the courts are the natural place to do this, since this is exactly the function of the Courts: the use of reason and objective tests to judge what is true and what is false.

The Executive of the Government works with truths, but it will have its blind-spots. In other words, the Executive, like many other organisations in society and civic society as a whole, is an interested party in the determination of truths. Of course, as the Executive of the Government upholds the general interest of society, the Executive has a lot more capacity to obtain information and generate knowledge. Though it does not have the monopoly on truths, the Executive is first among equals in knowing and working with truths. It is the responsibility of the Executive to share its depositories of knowledge and truths with the public, so that together with the informed public, the Executive can correct falsehoods that could undermine our public institutions. The Government should focus on co-correction with the informed public, not the unilateral correction of falsehoods by Ministerial fiat. It is a star player in the football team, the captain even, but it should not be the referee.

I do not agree with the very notion that the Courts are the final arbiter of truth in this law, because this means that the Executive of the Government is the initial arbiter of truth. The Executive should not arbitrate the truth. It is not its place to do so. If it does, it undermines our collective faith in truths in the long run. Should the Executive exercise the powers given in this law, it will short-circuit the process of co-correction with an informed public which I just described. In doing so, the Executive forces the truth, let me say it again, forces the truth unto the public, it does not arbitrate the truth.

The argument to give the Executive these draconian powers of forcing the truth on the public is that the Executive needs speed to act quickly when it comes to exigent matters of public interest. But there is no reason why the process of applying to the Court for corrections and take-downs cannot be sped up. If the Government can speed up the appeal process in this proposed regime, and for the POHA interim protection orders, then there is no natural obstacle to do the same for the alternative process of making the Executive apply to the courts for corrections and take-downs. The need for speed in certain areas can be met without misplacing arbitral powers in the Executive.

But when it comes to public confidence in the performance of the Government, there is absolutely no need for speed. Public confidence is a long-drawn affair. Less haste, more effectiveness. Heterodoxies, which may be extremely uncomfortable for the Government in the short term, are often useful and beneficial to public institutions in the long term. Many times, the heterodoxies will not go away, and the more authorities tried to forcibly protect the orthodoxy, the stronger the heterodoxies grow. Sometimes, the heterodoxies turn out to be true, once the full force of information and evidence decide the matter.

The only right approach is continued public engagement and public education by the authorities, the efforts of which in themselves will help to shore up public confidence in public institutions.

Take for example the anti-vaccination movement. One strand of it grew from academic studies published in scholarly journals about possible association between the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis or DTP vaccine and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome or SIDS in the United States in the 1980s. These studies, because of its sensational value, were reported in the media, creating alarm among the public and feeding the anti-vaxxers. Over time, medical scientists debunked many of the studies reporting possible association and produced studies that quite conclusively show no association between the DTP vaccine and SIDS.

This enhanced scientific certainty made the public health system more robust and improved public confidence in public vaccination programmes. It could be said that society took one step back and then two steps forward, but if the authorities have intervened to suppress the heterodoxy in the name of protecting public confidence in the public health system in the first place, we would have been stuck with an orthodoxy, a believed truth, rather than one we have scientific certainty of. The DTP-SIDS myth refuses to die till today, but this has spurred public education efforts that have enhanced public awareness of the benefits of vaccination.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the legacy that each predecessor government should leave to its successor: a culture of public engagement that enhances our collective faith in truths and co-corrects falsehoods with an informed public. This POFMA Bill undermines such a legacy and leaves us with a Trojan Horse instead. It is ironic that this Government is extolling the current public confidence in it to dismiss concerns of abuse. It is saying in a circular way, "Thank you for your trust in us, trust us then to use these draconian powers to protect that trust".

What if future governments who do not deserve the trust of the public or even if this Government tomorrow, because they are not performing their duties well, seek to prop up the trust and deny public scrutiny using POFMA? There will be nothing to stop such irresponsible governments, for which corrections can pour out of POFMA as quickly as Greek troops pouring out of the Trojan Horse to seize the city of Troy. What matters to us is not the assurances of the Minister for Law of restraint and reason on his part, but the substance of the law as framed in this Bill, whether it is a charming but fatal Trojan Horse or a true legacy of protection that deepens our trust and unity as a diverse society that goes online to discuss issues.

In the same shadow of the Trojan Horse, the subsidiary argument that Ministers will face the public at the ballot box for wrong and heavy-handed actions is a terrible argument and poor justification for granting such far-reaching powers to the Executive. It is irresponsible political brinkmanship. It is saying to the citizens, “If you are not happy with my decision, I dare you to vote me out”. If Singapore reaches this stage where the Ministers have to be tested at the ballot box in this manner, then we are already seeing the erosion of trust in Government and in the public institutions. It will be too late to turn back by then.

Mr Speaker, Sir, truth and justice lie at the heart of modern political systems that are progressive and protective of the rights and livelihoods of the people. Truth and justice are not just ideals, but they are pragmatic values that pervade the performance of public institutions. Truth and justice are closely related, they imply each other. The Executive acts on truths to accomplish justice. The Judiciary enacts justice by arbitrating disputed truths. It is clear that the protection of society and the Government from online falsehoods should lie with the Courts. This is the position of the Workers’ Party. We oppose the Bill.

6.28 pm

Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. I spoke to many residents and there is consensus that fake news has a profound effect on the world. The question now is how best to deal with this issue. And it is this: How can our society best balance our individual desire to free speech, with our desire to be protected by the tremendous impact of irresponsible, or even worse still, deliberate falsehood, weaponised by the speed and reach of social media.

Many of us in this Chamber are aware that there is no single silver bullet to combat fake news, online or offline. The best we can do is to create laws, so as to create an environment for responsible speech, anchored by an informed citizenry. Indeed, when the demand for fake news diminish, no supply of fake news, no matter how large the supply, can seriously harm society.

Our desired outcome should not be just to weed out irresponsible speeches that diminish our society. We must also ensure that responsible speech thrive in society, because healthy private and public discourse is the means for people and society to reflect and move forward.

And that brings me to my main point today – after our robust debate today, we must do more to communicate to our people what constitutes responsible speech. A fair number of my residents have seen the various news articles, WhatsApp messages, and even Michelle Chong’s recent interview of Minister K Shanmugam.

But there is still a much-needed desire for clarity on what this entire framework of various laws means. For example, POFMA does not target opinion. It is clear from what the various Government officials and Ministers have said. But at the same time certain offensive and divisive speeches are restricted using different laws.

What people do not understand is that there are several laws, each targeting different kinds of harmful speech with remedies that vary in strength. These laws includes : (a) POFMA and POHA; (b) Penal Code: section 298 and 298A; (c) Sedition Act: section 3, 4; (d) Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act: section 8; and (e) Contempt of Court: sections on scandalising of courts, and sub judice contempt.

These laws are complex to understand by themselves, and it is even harder for most Singaporeans to understand how it works altogether. Therefore, it is very important that we unpack for our people, in simple terms, what constitutes responsible speech: (a) the various laws; (b) the principles behind these laws; (c) our unique circumstances and vulnerabilities; and (d) who are these laws meant for?

Now that there is considerable public attention on responsible speech, let us ride on this wave of interest, and share more on this topic. When people understand better how the different laws work, their powers and limitations, then they can see that Government does not have blanket power to take down whatever news they do not like. Only certain types of speech that are harmful to society can be dealt with according to the law.

A good place for this to start is our schools, especially at our tertiary institutions, where there has been much discussion about this law today. I have seen a deep conviction by MinLaw to create our overall framework for responsible speeches. I hope we can see a whole-of-Government effort, including MOE, to communicate that clearly to our people in a simplified manner.

Next, I would like MinLaw to clarify on one matter. Under the law, there is a defence of "reasonable excuse" for the internet intermediaries. Does this mean that an intermediary can choose not to comply and invoke the defence, if it hurts their profits to comply?

Lastly, I would like to end by suggesting that Singapore actively contribute to the global discourse on how we deal with deliberate online falsehoods. Indeed, there are many legislators all over the world watching our deliberations today. Deliberate online falsehood is something that affects all societies and does not automatically and neatly stop at any borders. In the long run, our best bet is to shape the larger environment in a positive way.

Let me conclude, in my speech on the motion on this matter last year, I quoted Washington Post's motto, "Democracy dies from Darkness". Democracy cannot survive and thrive without a public discourse informed by facts, truth and transparency. Because public discourse is the means for our society to reflect collectively. Therefore, I support the Bill. It strengthens our framework of responsible speech. It seeks to root out merchants of mistruths, or special interests and worse still, foreign influence that seeks to deliberately manipulate and destabilise our society through fake news.

But we must go beyond crafting this excellent legal framework. We must communicate clearly and simply to our people what responsible speech entails, factoring our unique circumstances as a small, multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-racial city-state. Because what matters is not just ensuring that fake news has no place in Singapore, but also to ensure that our laws do not unintentionally curtail healthy and necessary discourse or diminish the marketplace of ideas that healthy democracies, like Singapore, require. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill.

6.34 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir. I seek your approval to speak in Malay first, please.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat: ( In Malay ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Fake news has adverse consequences around the world. Often, it is an act of mischief that causes disruption, discord and panic. Sometimes it can generate serious consequences, such as interference in national elections in India and Thailand, and causing clashes between the people and the police as in Greece. In the UK, the fake news aims to make people question the safety of using vaccine to prevent diseases. And we in Singapore also have our fair share of people who spread fake news.

However, it is not surprising that there are those who are concerned about the Protection against Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill being tabled. Yesterday, Minister Shanmugam gave a detailed statement, and corrections or take-downs should only be made if it is a factual falsehood and undermines public interest. And the Minister's decision can be challenged in Court and changed. In addition, the appeal process is also made easy and affordable.

But having regulations in place is important to address falsehoods arising from cognitive biases. Such falsehoods, built up over time via a drip-feed effect, can become something that is hard to overcome. We have to nip the problem in the bud before it becomes a full-blown crisis. Falsehoods do not have to take the form of elaborate hoaxes that are detrimental to the public interest. In fact, elaborate hoaxes are more easily recognised and debunking it is not difficult, because it can be easily traced. On the other hand, drip-feed falsehoods are dangerous because they do not have an immediate effect and are harder to detect. If it is a constant drip-feed of falsehoods, it is, in fact, more damaging in the long run. It is like a whispering campaign to poison minds. The effect is comparable to the rain water dripping from a rooftop onto a walkway. Eventually the tiny droplets will create a cavity on the cement floor.

Social media giant Facebook recognises this problem and took steps to reduce the impact in the lead-up to the French election, for instance. They targeted fake accounts, worked with newsrooms to debunk false claims, and ran full-page ads in the French newspapers to guide readers on how to spot fake news. According to the head of research at First Draft News, a non-profit coalition working to address misinformation online, which Facebook is also a member of, there was plenty of material sowing seeds of confusion and distrust. These come in the form of manipulated videos, photos and other misleading content. It is more insidious compared to a major hoax. They are relentless in their attacks as they persisted in their line of thinking.

So, it is crucial to note the intentions behind the creation of such content. Not all exist with pure intentions of providing entertainment or an alternative voice. Often, content creators seek to increase traffic and readership on their platforms which translates to financial profits. They resort to sensationalising and manipulating news with intentions of generating so-called original content which they hope would go viral. These stories tend to spark strong emotional responses like anger.

A common misconception is that drip-feed falsehoods do not have immediate impact on national security and so should not be investigated under the Bill. But if left unaddressed and allowed to manifest into something more threatening, that can lead to severe consequences. Many violent conflicts around the world have occurred as a result of the spread of such drip-feed falsehoods, which feed on people's fears to instil mistrust and hate on a gradual but regular basis.

In 2018, a terrible lynching happened in Mexico because of some rumours of child abduction when, in fact, no children were kidnapped. The incident made waves globally and many major news outlets cited it in their commentaries about the dangers of fake news. Yet, in 2019, child abduction rumours are causing violent attacks on the Roma people in France.

In other countries, religious institutions are destroyed, innocent people injured, even killed in protests, while outcomes of political elections and major referendums are manipulated through falsehoods. These have far-reaching impacts on countries, as well as their citizens. We need effective tools to deal with drip-feed falsehoods and we need them right now. It will be too late if we wait until the harm reaches a severe level to take action.

( In English ): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my question then is how will the Minister for Home Affairs or Minister for Law react to seemingly inconsequential lies and misrepresentations, especially when the perpetrators use the drip technique to slowly feed poison into the minds of readers? For example, a personal account about how the Police has mishandled a case, which may or may not contain some personal bias, or a photo edited in a way that misrepresents local authority figures, or a post about an ethnic stereotype, perhaps made in jest. Ethnic memes are popular in the west, and I have no doubt that some Singaporeans use them in a tongue-and-cheek manner with no real intention of promoting hate. Yet if such content is made accessible on a regular basis, this potentially leads to a drip-feed of falsehoods and diminution of public confidence over time.

I am assured to know Minister Shanmugam had clarified that there would be a "clear oversight mechanism" in place to prevent possible abuse of power by the Singapore Government. I agree that swift action is necessary to prevent seeds of discord from growing into something more threatening. In doing so, reasons and evidence should also be released to the public upon issuance of the take-down or correction order. This would not only assure Singaporeans that the Government only targets false statements with evidence, but it will also give more strength to the correction. Corrections must be carefully crafted and they must be detailed, with the purpose of refuting each and every false claim. The Minister has said that this will be done, and it will be prescribed through law. I am glad that the Minister acknowledges the importance of transparency. However, the timeliness of publishing the correction is also important, and I urge the Minister to consider this factor as well; any possible, tighten the time needed.

This Bill should not be deemed as an end all be all to shut down fake news. Regular reviews should be done to assess what type of content is prone to being turned into fake news content, and what are the reasons, and what can we do about it.

I also note that some netizens have been comparing POFMA to the Anti-fake News Bill by our Malaysian counterparts. I am not legally trained but I tried to read the Bill to my understanding, the example illustrations of actions that would be prosecuted under the Anti-fake News Bill in Malaysia, are indicative of outright defamation, quite a different type of falsehood from what POFMA seeks to eradicate. Moreover, the punishments are harsh for perpetrators and abettors, involving astronomical fines and long jail terms.

In the case of POFMA, Directions are intended to remedy the impact of falsehoods and not those who deliberately create and spread falsehoods. For example, they may be issued to intermediaries, primarily. The Directions are not even focused on punishment but on remedying the impact and thus the correction is an important element. Both Bills, in Singapore and Malaysia, have different intents and it is unfair to compare them. The main levers in the POFMA Bill, are targeted at the intermediaries, through the various Directions that can be made. That is different from Malaysia's Anti-fake News Bill.

Education must continue to play an important role too, to impart critical thinking skills and help Singaporeans to discern whether something is a falsehood. There must be more trusted avenues for Singaporeans to do fact-checking. There are some international websites which do fact-checking and publish corrections of fake news. Unfortunately, there are also hoax websites that impersonate fact-checking websites! Can the Government share how the tools for dealing with online falsehoods today are inadequate? What other efforts are there to complement the legislation in countering online falsehoods?

In conclusion, a multi-pronged approach is required to curb and eventually eradicate fake news, especially those that are connected to deep-seated beliefs. In prosecuting perpetrators of fake news, we must maintain transparency of the process, allowing the public to understand why it is deemed a falsehood. We must reflect on why many people believed in a particular piece of fake news, and how we can get to the root of the problem. We must also persist to encourage Singaporeans to adopt the correct attitudes and values when gathering information on the internet. Sir, I support the Bill.

6.43 pm

Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, fake news is not new. Deliberate disinformation has been part of statecraft for centuries. Singapore has experienced our own tragic effect of disinformation in our early days.

And I will quote two examples. The first is the Communist threat. Early propagandists like Tan Malaka who hailed from Indonesia. He was an a gent of the Comintern. Arriving into Malaya in the 1920s, he i nvited the Chinese Communist Party to send agents into Malaya in 1925. That marked the beginnings of the early stages of the Malayan Communist Party (CPM). The CPM grew by leaps and bounds during the Second World War. We launched the Communist struggle at the end of the Japanese Occupation, and thus began the Malayan Emergency.

Disinformation and propaganda of falsehoods supported by Communists in the region were widespread all the way until the 1980s. This entire experience of the Communist lead to over 13,000 deaths over 12 years, ending only in 1960. Subsequently, they went underground but continued to destabilise young nations of Malaya and Singapore.

In 1964, we had the race riots. It is a tragic yet pivotal moment in our history. One seared into our psyche. Yet though we call it a race riot, it was the weaponisation of political narrative that led to the unfortunate incidents.

Its background is not unknown to us. Many have studied it. Key of which was the political disagreements between the Alliance Federal government in Malaysia and the PAP Government in Singapore. UMNO at that time led the campaign through Utusan Melayu, which was a Jawi based newspaper. Disinformation articles in Jawi manipulating the words of Singapore leaders were widespread. An example of which, is this article from 17 July 1964. Very soon, the fall, the riots took placed. It established facts that were untrue about our Leaders, it spoke about Singapore Leadership intentions to oppress of Malay rights. Clarifications were made by Singapore Leaders but clarifications were not published by the paper.

There were further deliberate disinformation campaigns. A series of leaflets were issued calling for Chinese to be killed in Singapore. In one paragraph, it said, "We should wipe out all the Chinese from Singapore to prevent them from making fools of us." Materials like that inflamed tensions between communities. On top of that, you have further inflammatory speeches by people such as Secretary General of UMNO, Syed Jaafar Albar. One thing led to another and created a climate of fear and distrust. What would have been a small incident during the procession on Prophet Muhammed's birthday became that spark on the entire pile of tinder that exploded. Deaths, injuries, destruction. Not just of lives and infrastructure but society itself.

However, we survived it and we thrived. But will we be as lucky the next time? Today this Bill gives us the capability we lacked then. To put out clarifications, corrections fast, accurately and widely. We may speak philosophically about it. But when lives depend on accurate information that needs to be out there urgently, we will be, would not want to be philosophical about it.

Let us look at Ukraine today. It is subjected to a daily barrage of disinformation to destabilise the country, further divide the Russian-speaking population, the minorities there and the majority Ukrainians. As an example: a pro-Russian fake news site circulated an article that the press service of the Ministry of State of Security in the Donetsk People’s Republic reported that Ukrainian forces were preparing a provocation in Donbass. This was when an EU delegation was due to visit. The DPR Ministry claims to have uncovered Ukrainian forces’ plans to use a missile to shoot down the delegation’s helicopter and blame it on the DPR's rebels. This just one example of the daily barrage that they have to go through.

The Select Committee has reported on how falsehoods have been weaponised by some countries. Minister in his opening speech yesterday spoke yesterday about "non-kinetic warfare" to harm the sovereignty and social resilience of other nation states. Dr Shashi Jayakumar of the RSIS presented before the Select Committee and he shared on how disinformation operations involve and I quote: "spreading rumours to discredit politicians, and playing up themes like the negative portrayal of immigration policy have been aimed at undermining public trust towards democracy, and systematically influencing populations to become less trusting of mainstream, established news networks and more trusting of fringe news sources (backed by foreign powers) and conspiracy narratives."

We must realise that this is not a theoretical possibility. It is not one that is far removed from our shores. The Select Committee has received expert evidence of foreign state-linked disinformation already present in Singapore. This makes complete sense. We are a nation that is open and connected and diverse, and therefore, is the perfect target for disinformation operations as part of larger influence operations to wear down our people.

I return to my earlier starting point that disinformation is not new. Then what makes it so different now that we require new and robust laws?

Retired US Airforce Intelligence Colonel Jon Herrmann describes what is known as the V3S3 of "weaponised narratives": vector, vulnerability, and virulence; scope, speed, and synergy. Traditional vectors in traditional warfare are physical weapons but they have limitations of reach and cost. Falsehoods, however, as weaponised narratives and disinformation are unconstrained by physical bunkers of hiding spots. It has a global blast radius that self-propagates after launch. Vulnerability traditionally meant how much of a bombardment you can take before physical resistance succumbs. Today, it is easy to get past cognitive resistance. It exploits our weaknesses and our biases.

Virulence today should be no surprise as well because fake news and falsehoods spread faster and wider than any given chemical weapons. The scope and speed by which falsehoods spread when digital technology costs so much less than bullets. Ammunition that self-replicates through bots and online armies. What some refer to as a firehose of falsehood, the deluge that comes towards you. And of course synergy when disinformation builds up one on another, confusing first, confounding and then eventually convincing the population.

So, even traditional disinformation campaigns have evolved. I think we can all agree that against such state-sponsored disinformation campaigns needs speed, accuracy and clarity, wide distribution and inoculation to combat. And therefore, the Executive is best placed in this situation to make the call for national security.

There will be some who say, why not let us take a middle ground. While some falsehoods will require swift action, the same urgency should not extend to other kinds of falsehoods, for example, drip feed falsehoods. But against this backdrop, the assertion that some drip feed falsehoods should not require swift actions is misconceived. It is precisely drip feed falsehoods that are the weapon of choice of state-linked actors today. Gradual insidious effect can take root deep in the population’s psyche. Without a speedy reaction, it can be very difficult to remedy.

In this line, I wish to make a point on the final limb that is proposed in this legislation. Some have expressed concerns over this. That of undermining public confidence in the Government and other agencies and some say the definition of "public interest" is far too wide. However, given the expert evidence on disinformation operations, especially those that are already apparent in Singapore, it is clear why this ground is needed. It is important that the exercise of power remains subject to clear check and balance. I think we must accept that. But this Bill does provide for it and has been emphasised by the Minister and many others who have spoken about it.

Disinformation campaigns, weaponised narratives, all served as this new front and we must all be prepared. To better inform the public on why POFMA is of particular importance to combat such foreign campaigns, I ask that the Minister share more on how the Bill serves as a counter to state-linked campaigns run against us and to prepare and inoculate our people against such disinformation that seeks to divide our population.

Coming back to my example on the Communist threat in the early years, some younger residents that I spoke to recently asked what will be the status of academic research. For example, historians writing papers on research into Operation Coldstore. Research that asks if there was ever a Communist threat, if there were ever any Communists in Singapore at all. I think these are honest questions and I am thankful that Minister Ong, as Minister for Education, has spoken succinctly on this. What the Bill encompasses and what it does not, especially when it comes to academia.

Much has also been said about the directions by the Minister or Ministers. Whether to correct or to take down. Some say that the direction is like a beheading. It serves as a tool to permanently silence the discussion. This, I think, grossly misconstrues what the directions set out to do. Far from silencing discourse, I submit that it adds to it. In fact, as it stands, even after a correction, the original poster can still comment on it. So can journalists, so can academics, so can any man in the street.

When the Minister give a correction or take down directions, he is required to give reasons on why a statement of fact is false. So, far from reducing the discourse, it acts to it. More importantly, it certainly does not silence. In fact after a take-down, the person is free to continue posting on any other matter. To say that the directions will silence discourse, ignores that the discourse will now be more complete because it will have both view points. It is up to the public to decide, with the availability of both view points, what is right or what is wrong.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an important and much needed piece of legislation. We are under threat from outside actors and that is something that requires robust measures to safeguard Singapore and Singaporeans; and that is why I support this Bill.