SINGAPORE: The Workers' Party (WP) objects to the proposed law to tackle deliberate online falsehoods, on grounds that the Executive should not be the initial decision maker on what constitutes false statements, said party secretary-general Pritam Singh on Tuesday (May 7).
Speaking in Parliament during the debate on the Bill, Mr Singh said the proposed law gives "remarkable leeway" to the Executive to define what a falsehood is.
AdvertisementHe cited a clause in the Bill which legislates that a statement can be deemed by the Government to be false if it is misleading – wholly, in part, on its own or in the context which it appears.
"In public understanding, this clause gives broad latitude to the Executive to clamp down on what it deems to be even misleading statements which may not be false per se," Mr Singh said.
Statements which the Executive finds offending, misleading or against public interest may be not be seen as so by others, he added.
Under the proposed legislation, a minister has the power to declare that an article contains falsehoods, and issue a direction for a correction to be carried or for the falsehood to be taken down. This direction can be challenged in court.
AdvertisementAdvertisement[h=3]READ: Deliberate online falsehoods Bill: More details revealed on process to challenge decisions[/h]COURTS AS DECISION MAKER
While Mr Singh agreed that the issue of deliberate online falsehoods is one that Singapore has to deal with, he said the courts should be the final arbiter.
"While the Government must legitimately be able to apply to shut down malicious actors, a court order should legitimise the action that needs to be undertaken," he told the House.
[h=3]READ: Law Minister K Shanmugam addresses concerns over proposed online falsehoods and manipulation law[/h]Mr Singh pointed out that the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, which convened last year, saw some representatives expressing concerns about having the Executive as the decision maker.
“Representors raised concerns about whether Executive action would be credible. There was concern that Executive action could feed fears over the abuse of power. It was also pointed out that Executive directions would not be able to deal with falsehoods spread by the Executive," Mr Singh said, quoting from the report of the Select Committee.
He added that the committee had provided three alternatives to the Executive - namely the courts, an independent body or ombudsman, and to have social media companies self-regulate when notified of falsehoods.
[embedded content]
Mr Singh said that the Government's selection of the Executive as the decision maker could be because false statements of fact can be corrected, removed and dealt with faster than the courts.
"If so, it would be important to put this factor into perspective and consider alternatives that seek to balance the urgency of moving against an online falsehood and having a decision maker that is more acceptable than an unchecked Executive," he said.
WP CHIEF PROPOSES DUTY JUDGES TO DEAL WITH URGENT CASES
The WP chief added there are quick remedies under civil law or enhancements to the Protection from Harassment Act which could be tapped to deal with online falsehoods and manipulation quickly and effectively.
"To this end, I believe there is scope to introduce processes involving duty judges to deal with an urgent application from the Government speedily or at very short notice," Mr Singh said.
This could also be applied to periods where there is a heightened risk of false or misleading postings online, such as during the elections, he added.
[h=3]READ: Measures targeting online falsehoods aim to ‘remedy’ impact, ‘not punish wrongdoers’: Edwin Tong[/h]Mr Singh noted that the fake news domain is already a controversial one, so the decision maker must be perceived to be free of conflict.
"On its part, the Executive will act in some cases of falsehoods, and it other cases, it will not. In both scenarios, questions will be asked why the Executive acted as such. Suspicious will be raised and perceptions formed. Politicisation would be inevitable," he said.
"But it is precisely because of these very reasons that the decision maker must be perceived to be free of conflict in deciding on matters concerning online falsehoods and manipulation as defined by the Bill."
Let's block ads! (Why?)
More...