Singapore Goes on Global Offensive to Defend ‘Fake News’ Law
Singapore Goes on Global
Offensive to Defend ‘Fake News’ Law
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, Singapore’s High
Commissioner to the U.K., stated 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 in December, Singapore’s
ambassador to the U.S., 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
Ministry of Communications and Information’s information policy division,
accused Fred Ryan, the newspaper’s publisher, of “perpetuating false
allegations,” local media reported.
Free Speech
The battle for public opinion comes
as social-media companies raise concerns the law could impact their businesses.
Opposition Singaporean politicians are also worried the law will 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 the
new 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 Ministry
of Law wrote in an emailed response to questions, noting that content impacted
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.
This encourages greater transparency,” the ministry said.
Singapore is the latest Asian
country seeking to counteract the flood of fake news in an era when messages
delivered to smartphones over platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp have become
as trusted as articles from traditional media sources. In elections earlier
this year, both India and Indonesia sought to monitor the spread of fake 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
may 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 ($738,500) per post and a further S$100,000 per day
for non-compliance following a conviction.
In one case last month, Minister of
Home Affairs K Shanmugam instructed a “correction direction” to be issued to
Sydney-based Singaporean Alex Tan Zhi Xiang for posting alleged falsehoods
against the ruling party to the Facebook page of his political blog “States
Times Review.” Tan said by phone that he never received such a notice, 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, the minister for home affairs said Tan didn’t comply with
the order and commenced investigation proceedings against him. It said that 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 email.
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 U.S.-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 Inc. informed party chairman Paul Tambyah 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 emailed reply, calling the ban 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 also indicated it
is ready to comply 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 email, urging
the government to enforce the law judiciously.
Facebook said in September it has
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 didn’t 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, Law Minister K Shanmugam said during
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 himself was the target of the
law’s first correction direction. “It is a dark and dangerous path they are
on.”
©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Singapore Goes on Global
Offensive to Defend ‘Fake News’ Law
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, Singapore’s High
Commissioner to the U.K., stated 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 in December, Singapore’s
ambassador to the U.S., 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
Ministry of Communications and Information’s information policy division,
accused Fred Ryan, the newspaper’s publisher, of “perpetuating false
allegations,” local media reported.
Free Speech
The battle for public opinion comes
as social-media companies raise concerns the law could impact their businesses.
Opposition Singaporean politicians are also worried the law will 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 the
new 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 Ministry
of Law wrote in an emailed response to questions, noting that content impacted
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.
This encourages greater transparency,” the ministry said.
Singapore is the latest Asian
country seeking to counteract the flood of fake news in an era when messages
delivered to smartphones over platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp have become
as trusted as articles from traditional media sources. In elections earlier
this year, both India and Indonesia sought to monitor the spread of fake 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
may 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 ($738,500) per post and a further S$100,000 per day
for non-compliance following a conviction.
In one case last month, Minister of
Home Affairs K Shanmugam instructed a “correction direction” to be issued to
Sydney-based Singaporean Alex Tan Zhi Xiang for posting alleged falsehoods
against the ruling party to the Facebook page of his political blog “States
Times Review.” Tan said by phone that he never received such a notice, 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, the minister for home affairs said Tan didn’t comply with
the order and commenced investigation proceedings against him. It said that 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 email.
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 U.S.-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 Inc. informed party chairman Paul Tambyah 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 emailed reply, calling the ban 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 also indicated it
is ready to comply 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 email, urging
the government to enforce the law judiciously.
Facebook said in September it has
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 didn’t 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, Law Minister K Shanmugam said during
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 himself was the target of the
law’s first correction direction. “It is a dark and dangerous path they are
on.”
©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Comments
Post a Comment