On 19 October 2024, Donald Low, an academic and senior lecturer at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, issued a formal apology to Minister of State Rahayu Mahzam.

This followed Rahayu’s public statement and legal threat concerning what she described as a defamatory social media post made by Low.

In the Facebook post, dated 18 October 2024, Low had commented on the ongoing trial involving Workers’ Party (WP) leader Pritam Singh.

He expressed concerns about the Committee of Privileges (COP) proceedings, particularly in light of recent court testimony from Loh Pei Ying, a former WP cadre and witness in the COP’s investigation into former Sengkang GRC MP Raeesah Khan.

Low’s post questioned the reliability of the COP’s conclusions, particularly in light of Loh’s testimony about the redactions.

His remarks suggested that the evidence on which the COP had based its findings could now be viewed differently.

He stated in his post, “It looks like the COP got it wrong,” and commented on the involvement of a People’s Action Party (PAP) MP in reviewing the messages submitted to the COP.

In response, Rahayu Mahzam, who is the Minister of State for Digital Development and Information, and Health, posted on Facebook stating that Low’s allegations were false and defamatory.

She wrote: “It has come to my attention that in a recent online post, a Mr Donald Low has made a serious allegation against me in relation to the COP proceedings involving Ms Raeesah Khan. The allegation is wholly untrue and appears to be defamatory. I am seeking legal advice and intend to take action.”

Rahayu, a member of the COP that investigated Raeesah Khan’s conduct in Parliament, made it clear that she was prepared to pursue legal recourse to address the matter.

On 19 October 2024, Rahayu further responded to Low’s post in a detailed Facebook post.

In her post, she addressed not only Low’s comments but also broader public reactions to the trial and the role of online discourse. She reiterated that Low’s statements were false and defamatory and announced her intention to seek legal recourse.

“There have been several news reports and online comments made following Ms Loh Pei Ying’s account in Court of what happened during the COP proceedings. I am mindful that there is an ongoing trial in Court. I therefore need to be careful not to comment on matters which may affect the conduct of the trial,” Rahayu wrote.

She then directly addressed Low’s allegations: “Some statements were unfortunately made by Mr Donald Low which crossed the line and impugned my character and integrity. These statements were defamatory. I have sought legal advice and my lawyers have written to Mr Low for an apology and to state my position.”

Rahayu further explained that while she supports robust public debate, individuals must be held accountable for statements that damage others’ reputations.

“I believe in robust discussions and exchanges of ideas. People are entitled to different views and they are entitled to ask questions, but they are not entitled to make baseless allegations. We need to be accountable for the statements we make. When false and defamatory statements are made, those affected are entitled to seek recourse.”

She also warned of the dangers of misinformation spreading quickly online, urging caution and responsibility in public discourse: “We need to voice out when we see or hear something wrong but do so in a constructive manner and not jump to conclusions. This is especially so, on online platforms, where a piece of information can go viral fast and people’s opinions are so quickly set by what they consume in the digital space. One comment, one statement, can impugn integrity, character and ruin reputations.”

Minutes after Rahayu’s post on 19 October, Donald Low responded with a formal public apology on his Facebook page, retracting his earlier comments.

In his apology, Low wrote: “I, Donald Low, on or around 18 October 2024, made false allegations on my Facebook page in relation to Ms Rahayu Mahzam, Minister of State, Ministry of Digital Development and Information & Ministry of Health, that wrongly impugn her character and integrity. I undertake not to make any further statements on these matters, or to make any allegations to the same or similar effect, in any manner whatsoever.”

Low had earlier made another post to apologise to the Court, stating, “I have taken down my offending Facebook post. I undertake not to publish any post or statement again to the same or similar effect.” He acknowledged that his Facebook post on 18 October prejudged issues in the pending Court proceedings in Public Prosecutor v Pritam Singh (SC-902079-2024), and that such prejudgment prejudiced, interfered with, or posed a real risk of prejudice to or interference with the course of the pending Court proceedings.

The controversy stems from the ongoing trial of Singh, who faces charges related to his testimony before the COP regarding whether he advised Khan to admit to fabricating a story she told in Parliament.

The COP’s findings were based, in part, on witness testimony, including that of Loh, who admitted in court to redacting parts of a WhatsApp message from WP member Yudhishthra Nathan before submitting it to the COP.

This message discussed Khan’s earlier false statements in Parliament regarding a sexual assault case.

Loh’s admission that she redacted a portion of Nathan’s message, which she felt “does not look good on him,” raised questions about the accuracy of the COP’s conclusions.

In court, Loh also stated that both Rahayu and a senior parliamentary staff member had reviewed the messages before the redaction.

Loh testified, ‘The entire conversation was verified by a senior parliamentary staff and Rahayu Mahzam, who sat beside me and verified every message before it was redacted on my phone. They agreed it should be redacted.’

She clarified, however, that the decision to redact the message was hers alone: “This redaction is mine,” though she believed Rahayu was fully aware of the content of the message and the rationale for its redaction.

While issuing the defamation claim against Low, Rahayu has not publicly addressed this specific claim made in court, perhaps in concern of sub judice.

Bryan Lim Boon Heng, Vice-Chairman of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), voiced concerns over new election advertising laws in a Facebook post on 19 October 2024, following a briefing on election advertising requirements by the Elections Department and the Ministry of Digital Development and Information, which he attended with a few of his SDP colleagues.

Lim shared his apprehension regarding the Elections (Integrity of Online Advertising) (Amendment) Act (ELIONA), questioning its fairness in being applied equally to candidates from both the ruling party and the opposition.

The legislation, passed earlier this month, aims to prevent the spread of manipulated online content, such as deepfakes, during election periods.

Lim acknowledged the positive intentions behind ELIONA, which was introduced to curb misleading content generated by AI and other digital tools.

However, he emphasised that its actual implementation would be a test of the government’s commitment to a level playing field in Singapore’s political landscape.

With general elections expected by November 2025, Lim called on the public to help monitor potential misrepresentations of opposition candidates, stressing the importance of quickly reporting issues to the Returning Officer.

Lim also raised concerns over recent amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act 1954, particularly those regarding Traditional Election Advertising (TEA), such as the display of flags, banners, and posters.

These amendments limit the permissible time period for displaying campaign materials to between the Issuance of the Writ of Election and the close of Nomination Proceedings.

Lim implied that this exemption would benefit the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), as it would allow logos at PAP Community Foundation (PCF) childcare centres and the PAP headquarters to remain visible during the restricted period, without being counted towards the permissible TEA limits.

“No prizes for guessing which party stands to gain from these exceptions,” wrote Lim.

Lim further expressed strong criticism regarding the structural disadvantages faced by opposition parties in Singapore.

He argued that elections in the country “will never be free and fair” as long as the Elections Department operates under the Prime Minister’s Office.

Lim highlighted the significant challenges the opposition faces, stating that they are often forced to campaign with their “hands and legs bound” while competing against a ruling party that enjoys substantial resources and the backing of mainstream media.

ELIONA Bill and the new legal framework

The ELIONA Bill, passed by Singapore’s Parliament on 15 October 2024, updates existing election laws to address the rise of digitally altered or generated media, such as deepfakes, during campaign periods.

This legislation applies to both parliamentary and presidential elections, banning content that depicts manipulated and untrue representations of candidates, which could mislead the public.

According to Josephine Teo, Minister for Digital Development and Information, the law focuses on combatting the “most harmful types” of misinformation, especially in light of recent technological advances in AI.

The move was spurred by widespread concerns, with a study by Verian Research revealing that 60% of Singaporeans fear the potential impact of deepfakes on the upcoming elections.

Teo cited other countries, including South Korea and Brazil, as having similar legal frameworks to control deepfake proliferation.

Content restrictions and exceptions

To qualify as prohibited content under ELIONA, the material must meet four key conditions: it must be part of election advertising, digitally manipulated, depict an untrue representation of the candidate, and be realistic enough for public belief.

This encompasses AI-generated content and traditional techniques such as Photoshop or video editing.

However, certain exceptions apply. Content that is clearly unrealistic, such as memes, satire, or minor cosmetic edits, is exempt from the law’s purview. Nevertheless, merely labelling content as altered does not exempt it from regulation, as these labels can be easily ignored or removed when the content is redistributed.

The law covers not just original posts but also the sharing and reposting of manipulated content on public platforms, including large chat groups on apps like WhatsApp and Telegram. Private communications between individuals or within small groups are not subject to these restrictions.

Enforcement and penalties

ELIONA gives the returning officer the authority to issue directives to remove or restrict access to manipulated content during the election period.

The law will apply from the issuance of the Writ of Election to the close of polling, focusing only on officially declared candidates.

Violators may face penalties, with individuals potentially subject to a fine of up to S$1,000, 12 months in prison, or both, for distributing prohibited content. Social media platforms that fail to comply with removal requests could face fines of up to S$1 million.

To strengthen compliance, the government is also developing a Code of Practice, which will require social media platforms to implement safeguards against manipulated content before elections. This code is expected to be finalised by 2025.

Opposition concerns and AI in political campaigns

During parliamentary debates, Workers’ Party MP Gerald Giam expressed concerns about how the law might limit the use of AI in political campaigns, particularly for opposition parties that often have fewer resources than the ruling PAP.

Giam questioned whether AI-generated content, even if it conveys an accurate and pre-approved message from a candidate, would be restricted under ELIONA.

Minister Teo responded by clarifying that even AI-generated content, despite being truthful, would be prohibited under the law.

She emphasised that while the script might be accurate, the fact that a candidate did not personally appear in front of a camera to deliver the message makes the content problematic, thereby subject to restrictions under the new legislation.

This clarification raises questions about how opposition parties, which often rely on digital tools to bridge the resource gap with the PAP, will navigate the upcoming election campaigns while adhering to the new law.