Connect with us

Current Affairs

对政府呈《防假消息法》感“失望和惊讶” 刘程强抨击为阻吓异议者

Published

on

《防止网络假信息和网络操纵法案》于今日在国会进行二读辩论。工人党前党魁暨阿裕尼集选区议员刘程强直言,对政府提呈有关草案感到“非常失望和惊讶”。

刘程强表态工人党反对上述《防假消息法》,“虽然我们认同有必要立法对付网络假消息,避免破坏现有政治体系和多元种族和谐,或影响选举结果。也应强制网络公司撤下可造成社会分裂的言论。”

但他指出,政府提呈该法案,不仅是为应付上述挑战,其背后动机,乃是为了对社交媒体的批评者起阻吓作用。“政府只要选择性处罚一些初犯者,就能达到杀鸡儆猴的作用,令人不寒而栗,造成言论自我审查。”

他不违言,这是为保护执政党,进行政治垄断的政策目标。

他也不认同律政部长尚穆根的解释,指出其他法令中赋予政府的权限,仅针对网站或公司,但是《防假消息法》枪口却针对个人在社交媒体发表的言论,令人担忧。

网络和社媒乃平民论政、问责之空间

他认为,网络假消息固然为社会管理带来新挑战,需要有新策略应对,然而不应忽略,市井小民讨论政治,已不局限于咖啡店,网络和社交媒体也是论政和问责政府的平台,这是科技进步为民主带来的正面发展。

他说,如今人民若对政府和政治人物质疑,不必躲在街头巷尾窃窃私语,已走出过去内安法令下,部长决定就可未审讯扣留的白色恐怖,这是我国迈向开放民主的一大步。

民众可以透过网络监督政府和反映对政策的意见,政府和人民可直接沟通和回应,知晓人民的需要,有助改善民生。”民意体现已不仅限于选举时,能善用网络平台的政府,更能推出体恤民情合民意的政策。

工人党表示,无法接受把人民论政和言论自由的权利,交给部长裁决。他列举工人党反对《防假消息法》的原因包括:第一,法案让部长拥有绝对的权力判断什么是假信息,并决定采取什么行动。这就像在一场球赛中,让部长同时扮演球员和裁判的角色。

“李显龙总理近日指出,科技和社交媒体的普及,让仇恨言论和假新闻非常容易散播,也让恶意人士更容易操纵观点,甚至影响选举。但我们怎么能肯定,执政党的部长就不会为了赢得选举,而操纵观点和散播假信息?

虽然法案规定在大选时部长必需委任一名政府官员来替代部长执行任务,在表面上看来是避免利益冲突。但又有谁能确保这位由部长所委任的政府官员不会为了自己和部长的利益而做出有损公众利益的事?”

“部长应向法官证明消息真伪”

再者,刘程强也认为,法案虽然规定涉事者可以对部长的裁决向法庭上诉,但对一般没有政府那样有整个总检察署资源的普通小市民,和政府打官司,无异于以卵击石。

他表示,工人党建议,部长应先向法庭投诉,向法官证明某网络消息乃假新闻,由法官作判断。

法案对于假新闻的定义过于模糊,误导性和虚假界限要怎么划分?“其实,政府根本没有兴趣在这方面做深入的探讨,它只是要人民把权力交给它,由它来做决定。”

刘程强指出:

法案在国会提出后,面对诸多反对的声浪,政府为了争取支持,不得不对什么才算是假信息做了一些说明。政府也不断要人民相信,他们只是针对假信息,而不是个人意见。可是,在这方面,我对政府没有信心。

在法案真正实施后,政府所呈现的又会是个怎么样的嘴脸呢?举个例子,如果我说政府推出建国一代和立国一代配套是为了买选票,这算是信息还是意见?

现代版“文字狱”?

再者,他认为部长可利用法案内假消息的广泛定义条文,根据需要对有关文字是信息还是意见做出选择性的诠释,例如,“老一辈的新加坡人无法接受一个非华人的总理”这样的话,如果是部长自己或者其支持者所说的,部长可以解说那是个人意见。

“但是如果在社交媒体上说这种话的是部长的政治对手,部长也可以说散布这样的假信息会造成族群对立,甚至引发冲突,危害国家安全而要求说这个话的人同时刊登政府认为才是对的话,要不然就惩罚他。这等于是现代版本的“文字狱”。”

刘程强不忘警惕,政府曲解法案的条文来对付眼中钉的事件并不是没有发生过。例如防止骚扰法案当时在国会通过时原本只是为了保护个人。但在几年前,政府却企图利用这个法案把政府部门也列为被保护的对象。

它指的是过去国防部曾企图用曾企图援引《防止骚扰法》,来对付指控国防部侵权的陈崇铭医生和采访者《网络公民》。

刘程强也强调,培养一个社会对假信息真正有免疫力的正确途径,是公民教育和培养一般民众对网络信息探求事实的习惯,不轻易相信网络消息,对来自网络的挑衅和“大新闻”不随意反应。

孙雪玲:质疑建国、立国一代配套“买选票”  乃小人心度君子腹

不过,内政部兼国家发展部高级政务次长孙雪玲,则驳斥刘程强,指后者质疑建国一代和立国一代配套乃是“买选票”,似乎有些“小人之心度君子之腹”,并敦促后者在国会庄严场合,不必使用如此极端说法。

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Farewell to Dr Lee Wei Ling: Rain marks solemn tribute, echoing her father’s funeral

Dr Lee Wei Ling’s funeral was conducted on 12 October 2024, in Singapore, with family members leading the procession in the rain. In a heartfelt eulogy, her brother, Lee Hsien Yang, remembered her dedication to medicine and family. Dr Lee had requested a simple ceremony, with her ashes to be scattered at sea.

Published

on

Li Huanwu and Li Shaowu sending off their aunt, Dr Lee Wei Ling in the rain (Photo: Lianhe Zaobao/唐家鴻)

Dr Lee Wei Ling was farewelled on 12 October 2024, in a solemn funeral ceremony attended by close family members and friends.

The weather was marked by light rain, drawing comparisons to the conditions during her father, Lee Kuan Yew’s funeral in 2015.

Her nephews, Li Huanwu and Li Shaowu, led the procession, carrying Dr Lee’s portrait and walking side by side under the rain, symbolically reflecting the loss felt by her family.

In his emotional eulogy through a recorded video, her brother, Lee Hsien Yang, spoke of Dr Lee’s profound contributions to medicine and her unshakable devotion to family.

He described her as a remarkable individual whose life had left an indelible mark on those who knew her, as well as on Singapore’s medical community.

Expressing deep sorrow at her passing, Lee Hsien Yang reflected on their close bond and the immense loss he felt, having been unable to attend her final farewell.

He recalled his private goodbye to her in June 2022, a poignant moment that stayed with him during her last months.

Lee Hsien Yang also reiterated Dr Lee’s wish for a simple funeral, a reflection of her humility.

In accordance with her wishes, her body was cremated, and her ashes will be scattered at sea, symbolising her desire for a modest and unobtrusive departure from the world.

LHY acknowledged the efforts of his sons, Li Huanwu and Li Shaowu, for their role in managing their aunt’s care during his absence, thanking them for their dedication to her comfort in her final days.

During his eulogy for his sister, Lee Hsien Yang also conveyed a message from Dr Lee regarding the family’s long-standing issue surrounding their home at 38 Oxley Road.

Quoting from Dr Lee’s message, LHY said: “My father, Lee Kuan Yew, and my mother, Kwa Geok Choo’s, unwavering and deeply felt wish was for their house at 38 Oxley Road, Singapore 238629, to be demolished upon the last parent’s death.”

Dr Lee had been a vocal advocate for ensuring that this wish was honoured since Lee Kuan Yew’s death in 2015.

Dr Lee and LHY had strongly supported their father’s wishes, while their elder brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, took a different stance. This disagreement led to a public and highly publicised rift within the family.

In her final message, Dr Lee reiterated: “Lee Kuan Yew had directed each of his three children to ensure that their parents’ wish for demolition be fulfilled. He had also appealed directly to the people of Singapore. Please honour my father by honouring his wish for his home to be demolished.”

Dr Lee had maintained a private life, focusing on her medical career as a respected neurologist. She was known for her candid views, often unflinching in her advocacy for transparency and integrity.

Her professional accomplishments, combined with her strong commitment to her parents’ legacy, made her a significant figure in both Singapore’s medical community and public discourse.

Diagnosed in 2020 with progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), a rare neurodegenerative disorder, Dr Lee faced immense physical and emotional challenges in her final years.

The illness progressively affected her movement, speech, and ability to swallow.

Despite her health struggles, Dr Lee remained actively involved in public discussions, particularly on matters concerning her father’s legacy, until her condition worsened to the point where communication became difficult.

By March 2023, her brother LHY revealed that her condition had deteriorated significantly, and he feared he might not be able to see her again due to his own circumstances.

Even in her final months, Dr Lee maintained a close relationship with her immediate family, who cared for her during her illness.

Dr Lee’s funeral and cremation mark the end of a significant era for the Lee family and Singapore.

Her legacy as a dedicated neurologist and a firm advocate for her parents’ values will continue to resonate, even as the debates over the future of the Oxley Road property remain unresolved.

The rain that fell during her funeral, so reminiscent of her father’s final farewell, added a symbolic layer to this momentous chapter in Singapore’s history.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

TJC issued 3rd POFMA order under Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC) was issued its third POFMA correction order on 5 October 2024 under the direction of Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods about death penalty processes. TJC has rejected the government’s claims, describing POFMA as a tool to suppress dissent.

Published

on

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), an advocacy group opposed to the death penalty, was issued its third Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) correction direction on 5 October 2024.

The correction was ordered by Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, following TJC’s publication of what the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) alleges to be false information regarding Singapore’s death row procedures and the prosecution of drug trafficking cases.

These statements were made on TJC’s website and across its social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter).

In addition to TJC, civil activist Kokila Annamalai was also issued a correction direction by the minister over posts she made on Facebook and X between 4 and 5 October 2024.

According to MHA, these posts echoed similar views on the death penalty and the legal procedures for drug-related offences, and contained statements that the ministry claims are false concerning the treatment of death row prisoners and the state’s legal responsibilities in drug trafficking cases.

MHA stated that the posts suggested the government schedules and stays executions arbitrarily, without due regard to legal processes, and that the state does not bear the burden of proving drug trafficking charges.

However, these alleged falsehoods are contested by MHA, which maintains that the government strictly follows legal procedures, scheduling executions only after all legal avenues have been exhausted, and that the state always carries the burden of proof in such cases.

In its official release, MHA emphasised, “The prosecution always bears the legal burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and this applies to all criminal offences, including drug trafficking.”

It also pointed to an article on the government fact-checking site Factually to provide further clarification on the issues raised.

As a result of these allegations, both TJC and Annamalai are now required to post correction notices. TJC must display these corrections on its website and social media platforms, while Annamalai is required to carry similar notices on her Facebook and X posts.

TikTok has also been issued a targeted correction direction, requiring the platform to communicate the correction to all Singapore-based users who viewed the related TJC post.

In a statement following the issuance of the correction direction, TJC strongly rejected the government’s claims. The group criticised the POFMA law, calling it a “political weapon used to crush dissent,” and argued that the order was more about the exercise of state power than the pursuit of truth. “We have put up the Correction Directions not because we accept any of what the government asserts, but because of the grossly unjust terms of the POFMA law,” TJC stated.

TJC further argued that the government’s control over Singapore’s media landscape enables it to push pro-death penalty views without opposition. The group also stated that it would not engage in prolonged legal battles over the POFMA correction orders, opting to focus on its abolitionist work instead.

This marks the third time TJC has been subject to a POFMA correction direction in recent months.

The group was previously issued two orders in August 2024 for making similar statements concerning death row prisoners.

In its latest statement, MHA noted that despite being corrected previously, TJC had repeated what the ministry views as falsehoods.

MHA also criticised TJC for presenting the perspective of a convicted drug trafficker without acknowledging the harm caused to victims of drug abuse.

Annamalai, a prominent civil rights activist, is also known for her involvement in various social justice campaigns. She was charged in June 2024 for her participation in a pro-Palestinian procession near the Istana. Her posts, now subject to correction, contained information similar to those presented by TJC regarding death penalty procedures and drug-related cases.

POFMA, which was introduced in 2019, allows the government to issue correction directions when it deems falsehoods are being spread online.

Critics of the law argue that it can be used to suppress dissent, while the government asserts that it is a necessary tool for combating misinformation. The law has been frequently invoked against opposition politicians and activists.

As of October 2024, Minister K Shanmugam has issued 17 POFMA directions, more than any other minister. Shanmugam, who was instrumental in introducing POFMA, is followed by National Development Minister Desmond Lee, who has issued 10 POFMA directions.

Major media outlets, including The Straits Times, Channel News Asia, and Mothership, have covered the POFMA directions. However, as of the time of writing, none have included TJC’s response rejecting the government’s allegations.

Continue Reading

Trending