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.”
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
As technological change sweeps across the world, the focus of education has undergone an inevitable shift toward artificial intelligence (AI) and digital learning. However, the HundrED Global Collection 2026 report has a message that Taiwanese society and education policymakers would do well to reflect on. In the age of AI, the scarcest resource in education is not advanced computing power, but people; and the most urgent global educational crisis is not technological backwardness, but teacher well-being and retention. Covering 52 countries, the report from HundrED, a Finnish nonprofit that reviews and compiles innovative solutions in education from around the world, highlights a
RSS