This blog post begins with a reading of the ST article "You ask, and we will answer: Ong Ye Kung on fake news Bill" by Cara Wong
Firstly, I am not good at reading bills but decided to give it a read since so many people are really 'freaking out' at this Bill.
I am sharing and learning and probably reading this out loudly so please pardon my ignorant attempt. Trust that my legal friends can shed some light on this Bill if I am reading it wrongly.
Why am I in a hurry?
Because there is no time, the next reading of this Bill will be on the 6th of May (MONDAY) - I think we should all read up on this and query our Ministers and MPs before the reading. Hopefully, they can clarify these concerns and doubts we have on the Bill.
Firstly, the title of the article.
"You ask, and we will answer: Ong Ye Kung on fake news Bill"
Why is Cara Wong using the term 'fake news Bill' in the title of the article?
I don't think it is a 'fake news Bill'. It is called Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Bill.
That would be factually more accurate since it is what is called. Yes, this is a very ugly cumbersome name... really even the acronym also sounds so 'uncool' like a boring art festival.
By calling it, a 'fake news Bill' gives us an impression that the Bill is limited to news in the traditional sense of journalism - much like Fake News debate that is going on in the world where the focus surrounds Media and Extremist Propaganda.
However, the POFMA Bill doesn't specify 'news' in this traditional way.
Instead, POFMA Bill targets all electronic communications (See Page 5 of Bill).
According to the Bill, any post on SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, Facebook updates, even Instagram Stories is a statement. Then that is a lot of statements out there! Also when you reply to my FB post - it could be seen as a statement.
POFMA Bill should concern everyone not just 'newsmakers or journalists' - because by the Bill's definition, we are making electronic statements all the time and any Ministers can judge if in the public interest if any of these statements are 'false'.
That is extremely worrying.
The first sentence of the article:
"The proposed fake news laws are targeted at the creators of falsehoods and not at those who disseminate them, and the authorities will explain these laws in detail to assuage the public's concerns, Education Minister Ong Ye Kung said on Sunday (April 28)."
'Fake news laws' is used in here. This Bill will affect all electronic communications - using Fake news laws is misleading us.
The sentence also states that the bill 'targets creators of falsehoods and not at those who disseminate them' seems to suggests that most of us should not worry.
In the traditional definition of Media, we can understand this as a news agency as the 'creator of falsehoods' and people who 'share' them are just disseminating and will not be targeted. This would be easy to differentiate.
However, the bill's definition of 'Statements' refers to all electronic communications. That would include chit chat and banters. You don't just share 'statements', you add your comments, reflection, jokes and thoughts - like how you have conversations. So the line between 'creators' and 'disseminator' is blurred in the context of electronic communications.
2nd sentence:
"He (Ong) added that "everyone need not be overly worried", as the proposed Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act does not target opinions, criticisms, satire or parody."
Given the recent incidents where some netizens got into trouble with the authorities over their 'statements'.
Edmund Zhong and another man faced Police investigation for his joke on the comment section of CNA's Facebook about throwing an egg at the Minister. John Tan's comment on Facebook got him charged under the contempt of court law for scandalising the judiciary. Leong Sze Hian is being sued for libel by the Prime Minister for sharing a link (without comments) on his own Facebook profile.
These incidents do not give me the confidence that the authority can understand what is going on with the internet.
On the contrary of what Ong is suggesting, I think we should be overly worried! I am worried that the authorities in judging truth and lies cannot differentiate a joke, satire or criticism.
Third Sentence:
"Speaking at the Singapore Buddhist Federation's Vesak Day celebration event at Ngee Ann City Civic Plaza, Mr Ong said it is important to have strict laws to prohibit speech and actions that try to divide people of different religions and races."
A little strange why a religious event is becoming a platform for the Minister to discuss the POFMA bill (later part of the article, Ong does cite the terror attacks in Christchurch and Sri Lanka as threats that Singapore faces). Mr Ong does seem to contextualise by saying "speech and action that try to divide people of different religions and races". Although 'of different religions and races' is a 'catch-all' which covers everyone.
The main point here is the danger of "speech and actions that try to divide people" that needs strict laws to prohibit them.
The bill does not do that. I searched the document for the words 'divide people', and I found none which states that. The closest interpretation is Part 1, 4(e), page 11, under the definition of public interest. To "prevent incitement of feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups of persons".
I do think Ong is referring to this one but this is a stark reminder that Bills are steeped in a different kind of language from our everyday language.
I do think Ong is referring to this one but this is a stark reminder that Bills are steeped in a different kind of language from our everyday language.
So the Bill covers what Ong says but not everything. Ong's statement can be interpreted as 'half-truth' or 'false' whichever way you wish to see it.
The Bill is a lot more extensive than what he is saying in this article.
The Bill gives the ministers the power "to decide whether a statement is false or misleading and against the public interest".
The definition of Public Interest is a lot broader than 'divide people'. It would include security of Singapore, public finances (no more talking about CPF?), public tranquility (what is that?), Presidential Elections (Um, discussion on Halimah's Malayness can also be considered!), General Election (it is coming?), diminution of public confidence in the performance of Organ of State (cannot complain about MRT hire of Generals because Ministry of Transport)... (read pg 11 to get a fuller picture).
I think everyone can agrees that something needs to be done about the Fake news problem. However, the POFMA Bill does not address the issues of 'fake news' or 'online falsehoods' at all.
POFMA Bill proposes that ministers should administer judgement over 'truths' is ringing all our alarm bells.
Three Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) – namely Ms Anthea Ong, Ms Irene Quay, and Associate Professor Walter Theseira – have issued a Notice of Amendment to the Bill. I think their suggestion of an Independent Council is much better than having ministers do it. I think the track record is that ministers get good marks for their studies but not very good at jokes, parodies and very bad at criticism.
The POFMA Bill is getting so many public concerns and queries, and I think it is time to take this Bill back to the drafting table. The POFMA Bill is an important bill - it is going to define and frame our freedoms.
My suggestion to the government and the ministers is to 'relax, don't do it'. They need to dialogue with the people - work with the people to find the best way to address the problems of 'online falsehoods'.
If the current form of the Bill is passed, it will be a "diminution of public confidence" in the performance of the Organ of the State.
