Connect with us

Current Affairs

POFMA will change the nature of public discourse and debate in Singapore, says academician

Published

6 years ago

on

The debate around the new fake news bill continues, this time with Senior Lecturer and Professor of Practice at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Donald Low chiming in to discuss how POFMA might complicate discussions of fact and opinions in the field of science.

Prof Low said in a Facebook post that one of the unintended consequences of the proposed fake news bill is that it “may change norms and expectations over how public discourse and debate should be conducted in Singapore”.

In his post, Prof Low also shared an article by Rice Media which argues that self-censorship could be the “new normal” under POFMA.

In his own post, Prof Low then gave an example of how the proposed legislation would have an impact, from an academic’s perspective. In the field of both hard sciences and social sciences, advances are made when scholars and researchers challenge commonly accepted facts rather than by simply discovering new and undisputed facts, says Prof Low.

He said, “Complexity defies simple binary categories of truth and falsehood. Facts are also often contested and contestable.”

For example, Prof Low presented a hypothetical scenario of the debate around reduced-risk tobacco products such as e-cigarettes. Some experts say these produces normalise smoking and act as a gateway for users to go on to smoke while others contend that it’s a much less harmless alternative to consuming nicotine and tobacco which could help smokers kick the habit.

Prof Low proposed that if he wrote an online piece arguing for the legalisation of these products, presenting his claims that they are less harmful than cigarettes, can help smokers quit, and that the claims of the gateway effect are grossly exaggerated, those statements are meant to be read as fact.

The thing is, who is to say that those statements are false? After all, many experts regard those statements as facts as well while just as many would regard those are merely opinions. While Singapore may have repeated it’s stance that e-cigarettes are just as harmful as conventional tobacco products – which is why the government has banned e-cigarettes on the island – other health agencies in countries like Japan have argued that e-cigarettes are in fact less harmful than smoking. UK’s Public Health England has also come out in support of alternatives such as vaping which they say is 95% less harmful than cigarettes.

So in Prof Low’s hypothethical situation, his opinions, presented as facts, would be going against the government’s stance on the matter.

He said, “It’s not good enough to say that the proposed law would only apply to “false statements of fact”, and “not criticism, opinion, satire, or parody.” This of course was referring to the comment made by Minister of Law K Shanmugam who was reassuring the public that the new fake news law would not infringe freedom of speech.

Prof Low then proposes then that even if a minister chose not to use POFMA to take down that article, said minister might be pressured by other – those who disagree with those statements – to do so.

Explaining that the law would alter the nature of discourse in Singapore, he writes that the changes are “not just for the better in the sense of getting people to think twice before they post something offensive or untrue, but also for the worse in that it my give the self-appointed thought guards (or censors) of the conservative establishment something they could use to pressure Ministers.”

While Singapore’s ministers are ‘relatively autonomous’ says Prof Low, they aren’t free from the weight of public opinion. He contends that there will be times when ministers may feel it is ‘politically expedient, even advantageous’ to pander to the party’s hard liners by occasionally using this law.

Over time, these individual decisions – though justifiable – may end up creating a self-censoring majority that is ‘closed-minded’ and ‘sanctimonious’.

Even so, Prof Low clarifies that he doesn’t disagree that online falsehoods should be regulated. It’s just that “the current Bill gives too much discretion to ministers, and defines too broadly (or loosely) what constitutes online falsehoods and what hurts the public interest.”

He continues, “It also seems to me that there is a well-established and accepted tradition for circumscribing free speech: when the exercise of free speech poses a “clear and present danger” to our peace and security.”

On this point, he questions why the bill doesn’t use more specific descriptors such as “clearly intended to incite violence” or “clearly intended to create hatred and animosity against others”, saying that it seems to him as if “the drafters of this Bill wanted to give maximum discretion and latitude to ministers.”

Related Topics:
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

1 day ago

on

12 October 2024

By

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

1 week ago

on

6 October 2024

By

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