Singaporean diplomats are taking the lead in defending a two-month-old “fake news” law, challenging international media outlets it says are publishing misleading claims on the contentious legislation.
Since the law was enacted in October, authorities in the Southeast Asian city-state have invoked it four times against critics and once against Facebook Inc, which was required to attach a government-issued “correction” to content deemed to contain falsehoods.
Government officials have also countered critical media coverage of the law, known as the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act.
Foo Chi Hsia (符祺霞), Singaporean High Commissioner to the UK, said that The Economist had misrepresented the law, writing in a Dec. 21 letter to the editor that it “should be looked at in the same context as our belief in the right of reply, which in our view enhances rather than reduces the quality of public discourse.”
“Readers can see both and decide for themselves which is the truth,” she wrote. “How does twinning factual replies to falsehoods limit free speech?”
Earlier this month, Singaporean Ambassador to the US Ashok Kumar Mirpuri disputed a Washington Post story that cited critics saying the law could have a “chilling effect on online free expression.”
In the letter, obtained by Bloomberg, he also criticized Phil Robertson, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Asia division, who was quoted as an expert in the story.
Days later, Bernard Toh, director of the Singaporean Ministry of Communications and Information’s information policy division, accused Washington Post publisher and chief executive officer Fred Ryan of “perpetuating false allegations,” local media reported.
FREE SPEECH
The battle for public opinion comes as social media companies weigh the effect of the law on their businesses.
Opposition Singaporean politicians are also worried that it could suppress dissent ahead of elections that must be held by April 2021.
They expect the ruling People’s Action Party, which has governed Singapore since independence in 1965, to win despite a slowing economy.
Singapore’s government has said that the law is not aimed at stifling free speech and is enforced independently of the election cycle.
“This is equally true with laws regulating the exercise of the rights of free speech and assembly, and with any other law,” the Singaporean Ministry of Law wrote in an e-mailed response to questions, adding that content affected by the law remains intact alongside the ordered correction, which links to a full justification.
“They can read both and decide for themselves on the truth,” the law ministry said. “This encourages greater transparency.”
Singapore is the latest Asian country seeking to counteract the flood of fake news in an era when messages delivered to smartphones over platforms such as Facebook and WhatsApp have become as trusted as articles from traditional media sources.
In elections earlier this year, India and Indonesia sought to monitor the spread of false news and counter the dissemination of rumors.
Some provisions in the law are unique to Singapore, which has increased risks for global tech companies.
In addition to requiring companies to post “corrections” to user posts, the law can also require them to ensure the correction is seen by every user in Singapore who has read the offending post. Penalties for failing to comply can be as high as S$1 million (US$739,547) per post and a further S$100,000 per day for non-compliance following a conviction.
CORRECTION DIRECTION
In one case last month, Singaporean Minister of Home Affairs and Law Kasiviswanathan Shanmugam instructed a “correction direction” to be issued to Sydney-based Alex Tan (陳智祥) for posting alleged falsehoods against the ruling party to the Facebook page of his political blog States Times Review.
In a Facebook post on Nov. 27, Tan said that he had not received a request from Australian authorities to take down any article, and said he and the publication “will not comply with any order from a foreign government like North Korea or Singapore.”
Tan said later by telephone that he never received such a notice from Singapore, and updated his post within 24 hours in an effort to be compliant with the law after learning of the offense from a friend.
One day after the government statement was issued, Shanmugam said that Tan did not comply with the order and commenced investigation proceedings against him, as a correction direction requires the recipient to publish a correction notice, providing access to the correct facts.
The order also instructed Facebook to post a correction, and the company complied.
“As it is early days of the law coming into effect, we hope the Singapore government’s assurances that it will not impact free expression will lead to a measured and transparent approach to implementation,” a Facebook spokesperson said by e-mail.
Critics say the recent cases are just the latest in a string of attacks on dissent.
Singapore’s crackdown on critical voices has “intensified” in the past year, according to a report published last month by US-based Freedom House, which cited government moves to temporarily block two local outlets and the prosecution of activists and journalists.
“These examples underscore how the government is weaponizing what is the genuine issue of disinformation in order to suppress information online and the rights to free expression and access to information,” said Allie Funk, a research analyst for the group’s “Freedom on the Net” program.
OPPOSITION FEARS
Singapore’s political parties have also expressed concern.
In a letter leaked by the opposition Singapore Democratic Party on Dec. 3, Google informed party Chairman Paul Tambyah that the company would not be accepting political advertising regulated by the new law, citing similar decisions made in Canada and Taiwan.
“This was not an easy decision to make as Google is committed to delivering useful and relevant election-related information to users around the world,” Ted Osius, Google’s vice president for government affairs and public policy in Asia Pacific, wrote in the letter, which was verified by Bloomberg.
Tambyah questioned the decision in an e-mailed reply, calling the ban on political ads a threat to democracy and saying “evil is often perpetrated by people and organizations who, wittingly or otherwise, ban freedom of speech.”
Twitter Inc has said that it is ready to comply with the law and has set up a dedicated team to review government requests.
“We remain concerned about the potential impacts of this regulation on our service, and the people and institutions that use Twitter,” a Twitter spokesman wrote in an e-mail, urging the government to enforce the law judiciously.
Facebook in September said it that it had taken steps to reduce the spread of misinformation, adding that it would start enforcing a global policy in Singapore introducing tighter regulations for political advertisements that require identity and location disclosures.
The statement did not specifically mention Singapore’s new law.
Singapore’s government is also considering a separate bill targeting foreign interference that would give authorities “powers to make targeted, surgical interventions” to investigate hostile information campaigns from abroad, Shanmugam said in a speech in September.
“There are always ‘reasons’ to take more and more power and this is just another,” said Brad Bowyer, a member of the opposition party Progress Singapore, who was the target of the law’s first correction direction. “It is a dark and dangerous path they are on.”
A return to power for former US president Donald Trump would pose grave risks to Taiwan’s security, autonomy and the broader stability of the Indo-Pacific region. The stakes have never been higher as China aggressively escalates its pressure on Taiwan, deploying economic, military and psychological tactics aimed at subjugating the nation under Beijing’s control. The US has long acted as Taiwan’s foremost security partner, a bulwark against Chinese expansionism in the region. However, a second Trump presidency could upend decades of US commitments, introducing unpredictability that could embolden Beijing and severely compromise Taiwan’s position. While president, Trump’s foreign policy reflected a transactional
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has prioritized modernizing the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to rival the US military, with many experts believing he would not act on Taiwan until the PLA is fully prepared to confront US forces. At the Chinese Communist Party’s 20th Party Congress in 2022, Xi emphasized accelerating this modernization, setting 2027 — the PLA’s centennial — as the new target, replacing the previous 2035 goal. US intelligence agencies said that Xi has directed the PLA to be ready for a potential invasion of Taiwan by 2027, although no decision on launching an attack had been made. Whether
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
RSS