Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." With your permission, Mr Speaker, may I ask the Clerks to distribute the handouts?

Mr Speaker: Please do. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, this Bill comes after a long process of public consultation beginning on 5 January last year. Green Paper by MinLaw as well as MCI highlighted the serious nature of the issues, the significant impact in other countries.

On 5 January, we asked Parliament and Parliament did so appoint a Select Committee (SC) to examine four broad issues. The SC then held public hearings; received 169 written representations from a broad cross-section of society.

The SC then prepared a detailed 279-page report – many of the issues which have been raised since the Bill was first tabled in Parliament, repeat the points that were canvassed quite extensively during the SC hearings; points like falsehoods and how to define them and differentiate them from opinions; the possible different decision-making models like executive powers, independent body, courts; and other such points.

Some of the discussion since the Bill has been tabled, I think, have not considered what the SC has said, or the evidence that had been presented, and the balancing between the different interests that the SC had to do.

I hope the discussions in this House will be better informed by reference to the SC's report.

Sir, in this speech, I will first explain the existing powers in law for dealing with objectionable material and contrast that with the powers under the Bill; second, why the Bill is being brought before this House now; third, the need and rationale for the Bill; fourth, new media and the weaponisation of falsehoods; fifth, deal with some of the concerns that have been expressed; and finally conclude.

My colleagues Minister Iswaran and Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong will deal with the key provisions of the Bill and how they implement the SC's recommendations. Minister Ong Ye Kung will speak on the Universities. My colleagues Zaqy and Sun Xueling will also speak in addition to other Members.

First, the powers that the Government has under existing legislation. They are wider than what is proposed under this Bill.

As we consider the Bill, the first question is: what are the Government's powers under existing legislation? What can the Government do about objectionable material now? In essential respects, existing powers are wider than those proposed under the Bill.

Let me turn to the current legislation. We can refer to the Broadcasting Act, Telecoms Act, various other pieces of legislation. Collectively, they give the following powers.

They allow orders to be made for the take down of any material that is objectionable on grounds of public interest. The statements do not have to be factual or false. They can be true, they can be opinions, they can nevertheless be ordered to be taken down under the current laws.

Two, current laws also criminalise the transmission of false or fabricated messages including on the Internet. Licensed newspapers, broadcasters including on the Internet can be required to carry clarifications, other content. The Ministers can order to restrict financing, technical support, to offending websites and restrict their reach; can block offending websites and access to objectionable material.

Section 16 of the Broadcasting Act allows IMDA to direct a broadcasting licensee to "take such action" with regard to content as it considers necessary to comply with the Act.

Some of these powers have existed since the 1960s. Others were added on subsequently with development of technology.

Laws had been updated; many of these powers also apply to online material.

The Internet revolution took off in the 1990s. 1996 – the Class Licensing Scheme under the Broadcasting Act for Internet Content Providers was put in. The Internet Content Providers (ICPs) are automatically licensed. All have to comply with guidelines under the Class Licence Conditions and the Internet Code of Practice. IMDA has power to take down content that goes against "public interest, public order, national harmony", amongst other grounds.

In 2013, then-MDA put in place a new individual licensing scheme for news websites which report regularly on Singapore; and also required online news sites to remove within 24 hours content which was in breach of standards and post a performance bond of $50,000.

The new regime harmonised the legal framework for online news sites with the framework for traditional news providers.

At that point in 2013, Members will recall some persons created the "Hands Off My Internet" movement; "Free My Internet" Rally in Hong Lim; some painted doomsday scenarios, how there was going to be a "Chilling effect on Free Speech", death of free speech and so on. Online statements were circulated to take a strong stand against the licensing regime; online petition as well. All of that had little to do with the truth.

Prior to the 2013 regulations, online news sites already had to comply with the same content standards, so there was no change in content standards. Post 2013, discussions online carried on as before. So, from 1996 to 2019, after 23 years that you have had the Class Licensing Scheme, take-downs were used mostly for sites and services with pornographic content, solicitation of sex, sex chats, religiously-offensive content, extremist content.

Most people in the street do not even know of the Broadcasting Act (BA) or other legislation and no impact on what they have been saying. The powers under the BA have been used judiciously and discussions had carried on as before.

The arguments made in 2013 against the changes are similar to the arguments that are being made now, and I will explain that later. They also have no connection to reality.

I will now make the point that the Bill provides for a narrower set of powers compared with powers that the Government already has. This is an important point when we make philosophical arguments in this House.

Earlier, I sketched out the existing powers and I have said the Bill is narrower in essential respects because it only applies to false statements of fact. In addition, it must be shown that the falsehoods are against public interest, which is set out in some detail in the Bill.

The four aspects of the Bill that have been commented upon by those who are opposed:

(a) Take down of material;

(b) Take Down can be ordered by Ministers;

(c) Definition of Public Interest;

(d) Definition of falsehoods.

I will deal quickly with all four.

The current position, if you compare the first point, the BA is broader on the types of material that can be taken down. The Bill is narrower. IMDA can direct licensees to remove content. It has the power to impose further obligations on licensees through their licensing conditions to correct falsehoods or shut down fake accounts. IMDA can also require a licensee to carry any correction as directed.

The second point: powers under the BA are exercised by the Minister today, and there is no direct appeal to the Court; it is only by judicial review.

The third point: public interest. The definition under the current law is wider, and the grounds for taking action are also broader. Any statement, whether true or false, factual or opinion, if it is objectionable against public interest, national harmony, can be ordered to be taken down, subject to judicial review. The Bill is much narrower.

The fourth point: falsehoods. How do you define? Dealing with falsehoods is not new. Section 45 of the Telecoms Act criminalises falsehoods transmitted over the Internet and other modes. And the Courts have long had to deal with the question of falsehoods in the law of torts, contracts, criminal law. Section 45 of the Telecoms Act was repealed yesterday, subsumed under the MOA and the Penal Code. The relevant provision of transmitting falsehoods is now under section 14D of the MOA without any change; it has just been transported over.

Some of the discussions by those opposed to this Bill fail to consider what the SC report has said, and seem to be without an understanding of the existing position.

Let me now deal with the second point. It is not just narrower in scope but it also gives greater judicial oversight compared with the current law. Existing powers on take down of objectionable material; the Government responses to be carried; other orders to be made; what oversight does the Court have today? It is by judicial review.

According to POFMA, the Bill, on the determination of falsehoods, the Court oversight is by way of direct appeal. That was a considered decision by the Government. The process will be made fast and inexpensive for individuals.

Other exercise of Government powers under the Bill, judicial review will be available, as is the law now.

So, whatever concerns there are about the Bill, they cannot logically be increased by this Bill. Lawyers will know, when you have a narrower Bill and the facts come within the narrower Bill as opposed to the broader law, in general, the narrower Act will apply. So, in fact that represents the narrowing of the current position.

Sir, as Members speak, I hope the debate will be based on an understanding of the current position, and I will do that by putting a series of questions.

Does the current law already criminalise transmission of falsehoods? The answer is yes.

Does the Bill take a narrower position? The answer is yes.

So, these arguments about definition of fact, these concerns cannot be new. We had similar provisions all this while with less judicial oversight. So, how does the Bill increase the concerns?

Second, take-down, corrections, are they possible now? The answer is yes.

Third, can a Minister order take-down now? The answer is yes.

Fourth, can a Minister order take-downs on broader grounds than under the Bill? The answer is yes.

Fifth, does the Bill give greater judicial oversight? The answer is yes.

Having said that, Members can then ask, if the powers are narrower in essential respects, why is the Government introducing this legislation? Why not just rely on existing legislation?

The existing legislation, with broad powers, have been in place for some time. After the SC process, we decided, let us have new legislation with a narrower set of powers than under existing legislation, focused on online falsehoods, with remedies that are more calibrated and provide for greater judicial oversight over executive action, designed specifically for the Internet rather than rely on existing legislation, and to deal specifically with online falsehoods, rather than the broader areas that are covered under the Broadcasting Act.

An alternate approach was entirely possible which would be to rely on existing legislation with slight tweaks and add subsidiary legislation. If we relied on existing legislation, what we want to achieve under this Bill can be achieved as follows.

First, rely on the Broadcasting Act as it is now for correction directions, take-down directions, general correction directions and demonetisation, to some extent.

Section 16 of the Broadcasting Act allows IMDA to direct a licensee to "take such action" with regard to content as it considers necessary to comply with the Act. So that would be the Broadcasting Act.

And then, you have subsidiary legislation under the Broadcasting Act which can be passed, with account restriction directions, declaration of online location, advertising levers. Then you move on to the existing class licensing scheme which can also be amended through subsidiary legislation to cover provision of content by individual publishers, and clarify that Internet intermediaries like Facebook and Google are also covered. So, all of this could have been done under subsidiary legislation.

The only thing, and the only thing that would have required a statutory amendment would have been one point under the Broadcasting Act; to the territoriality provision to include Internet intermediaries based outside of Singapore. But that really is not in dispute. I do not think anybody in this House would say we should not cover Internet intermediaries based outside Singapore.

If we had taken this alternate approach, the powers would have been broad and there would be less judicial oversight.

Issues that have been raised – facts versus falsehoods, public interest, Ministerial action, there would be no amendments needed for the legislation; can rely on existing legislation.

Members can therefore see, if we had relied on existing legislation with the appropriate amendments, and if you map that against issues that have been raised in public – facts versus falsehoods, public interest and Ministerial action to take down – there would have been no need to amend.

If we had taken that approach, the result would have been a blunt instrument with none of the calibration that the Bill proposes or the extent of judicial oversight, which is also going to be made speedier under the current proposals.

So, the Broadcasting Act was essential at its time to achieve the objective of that Act. It provides a balanced framework applicable to all forms of broadcast content.

The Bill, on the other hand, was fashioned to deal specifically with falsehoods that can be spread online with incredible speed, in a targeted manner, and to address such falsehoods with speed, with proportionality, and with the Courts given greater powers. That is why the Bill is preferable.

That explains the background.

What is the need and the rationale for the Bill? What are the substantive reasons for the Bill?

To understand that, we need to look at this larger context. Trends around the world affecting the very foundations of democracy, seriously impacting on societies, affecting the free flow of ideas, honest discussions and strangling the marketplace of ideas.

This Bill is an attempt to deal with some of these very real, serious risks which all societies face. But at the same time, in a carefully considered manner, with the Government deciding that we should come before the House and put forward something that in a way cuts down on the existing powers. And put forward a new Bill that actually restricts the Government's powers compared with today, but focused on online falsehoods. And voluntarily, compared with existing legislation, say, if the House agrees, let us give greater oversight to the judges, and let us make it much faster. So, that is the true nature of the exercise.

But the Bill is not a silver bullet. It cannot address all the issues.

And I will ask Members to bear with me as I set this out because it important for both Members and the public to understand the big picture before we can understand why this Bill is necessary.

The SC dealt with a part of the issue, but if you take one step back, what is the fundamental problem in many countries today? It is really a serious loss of trust in governments, in institutions both public and private, including the political system, the media, professions, businesses, financial institutions and so on.

What is the reason for the loss of trust?

Several factors; I will mention four.

First, inequality and inequity. Second, political systems not delivering. These developments have been aided by at least two other factors: the way traditional media has been behaving; and second, the effect of new media.

This loss of trust in turn has led to destructive populism in many countries with serious consequences for democracies.

I will ask Members to bear with me as I explain each because what we are facing is a very serious situation across the world; and we will face it. And this is not something to be taken lightly. I think the very seriousness of what we are facing, what many countries in the world are facing, has to be understood. Not just this legislation, but everything that we are going to do as a Parliament, as a Government, as a society, hereafter, has to be seen in the context of what is happening.

First, trust. Trust in institutions is important for society’s well-being and prosperity. Institutions deliver public goods for society: the Executive, the Parliament, the Courts, the Army, the Police, and other institutions like the media, the healthcare system, the banks, the professions, and the Universities.

Institutions are the building blocks of democratic societies. People depend on institutions to deliver economic and social benefits. Institutions play a crucial stabilising role. They serve to manage diversity, hold communities together and keep extremist politics at bay.

Institutions, in turn, depend on trust and legitimacy to work, to persuade the public to make sacrifices for the common good and to encourage societies to cooperate and come together to solve problems, to implement policies successfully, to take action for society’s benefit, and to steer countries through crises.

When people lose trust in institutions, it creates a vicious cycle. Studies show, for example, low trust in the medical system has an impact on public health – management of disease outbreaks.

Take law enforcement: perceived legitimacy of police is crucial to effective law enforcement.

We can give examples in all sectors, but the basic point is, when trust in institutions is lost, society suffers, everyone suffers.

What is the situation in many countries in the West, in many countries? In Western democracies, trust in governments is falling significantly. In Europe, the percentage of Europeans who trust their national governments has fallen from 36% to 29% over the last 10 years. There is a decline in nearly all countries in Europe.

In the US, a research centre's study shows public trust at "near historic lows". In 2019, only 17% trust the government. The percentage of Americans with a great deal of confidence in the courts, 16%; 45% do not have much confidence. In the presidency, 19%; 54% do not have much confidence. Americans have the least confidence in Congress – their parliament. 8% have a great deal of confidence; 71%, not much confidence.

Trust in other public institutions is also falling – in the media, the medical profession, the legal profession, many others. It is all borne out by data.

Singapore in comparison so far is okay. We were first included in the Edelman Trust Barometer in 2011. Trust in Government has been good. We are in the top "Trust" category and the Government is one of the most trusted institutions in Singapore. Trust in Government in 2019 is at 67 points compared to the global average of 26 countries at 47. Trust in mainstream media, we are seventh out of 26 countries.

But we cannot ignore the global risks, and we are likely to be impacted by the same forces.

Loss of trust in America has been described by the Wall Street Journal as "not merely a problem, but a crisis". It speaks to a loss of trust in the political system as a whole and in democracy itself.

What has led to this loss of trust? I highlighted four factors amongst several. Let me touch on them briefly.

First, rising inequality and inequity in many parts of the world. If you take the US, the top 0.1% of US households hold the same amount of wealth as the bottom 90%. In the US, the average salary of a CEO is 354 times the average salary of a worker.

In the UK, on the eve of Brexit, the UK reached its wealthiest position in modern history. Yet in the previous two years, the overall wealth of the poorest 20% of UK households declined by 9%.

It is a global problem. Seventy percent of people live in a country that has seen a rise in inequality in the last 30 years. It is estimated that by 2030, the richest 1% could own two-thirds of the global wealth.

So, that is one part – inequality. It is a very serious issue, and it is an issue in Singapore as well.

Second, the political system is not delivering. In absolute terms, living standards in most countries have risen compared with previous generations. But absolute figures are just one part of the picture. You have to look at the reality of people's lives. People's lives are not improving. Three indicators amongst many: social mobility; the quality of public education; jobs. Social mobility in the world's richest countries has stalled since the 1990s.

Just a couple of examples. As of 2018, in the UK, it took five generations or 150 years for a child from the bottom 10% in terms of income to reach the average national income. In France and in Germany, it took six generations, 180 years. In the US, the public education system, the serious deficiencies have been documented. And low investments in public education is one reason for lower social mobility.

So, people lose faith in democracy as a whole. People give up. They give up on governments. They do not think governments can deliver. So, US, Australia, UK, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and other countries, the percentage of people who say that it is "essential" to live in a democracy has fallen significantly, especially amongst the young. Less than one-third of Americans below the age of 35, say it is absolutely important to live in a democracy.

From 1995 to 2017, the share of French, Germans and Italians who favoured military rule, went up more three times.

From 1995 to 2014, the share of Americans who favoured military rule, rose 2.5 times, from one in 16 to one in six. Imagine that – one in six, in America.

So, the desire for an upending the status quo, has serious consequences – destabilisation, with global effects. Democracy itself is under serious threat. It will be very unwise for us to just watch and do nothing because it can sweep us over very quickly.

I believe we are at one of those crucial turning points in history. It may not quite be Gotterdammerung, but a turn for the worse.

This weakening of democracy and institutions, has been powered by a series of contributing factors, and I will mention two: media and new media.

First, the media. Media has, in other countries, played a highly corrosive role, in eroding trust in many ways.

In Australia, media played a major role in the ousting of former Australian Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull. Media attacked Turnbull savagely and regularly because the media owner did not agree with Turnbull's government policies, in particular, on climate change. And media became an active participant in politics and decided outcomes.

As he was being ousted, Turnbull said, and I quote, "The reality is that a minority in the party room, supported by others outside the Parliament, have sought to bully, intimidate others into making this change of leadership that they are seeking".

Kevin Rudd, another former Prime Minister, was also ousted by media. He wrote a scathing article and he said Murdoch ran a campaign to destroy his government in the 2013 elections. Murdoch's papers began to attack Rudd because Rudd planned to build a National Broadband Network that would be good for Australia, but Murdoch's cable monopoly would face greater competition. So, Rudd was ousted. Rudd described Murdoch as "the greatest cancer of the Australian democracy". And I quote, "A political bully and a thug who for many years has hired bullies as his editors. The message to Australian politicians is clear: either toe the line on what Murdoch wants or he kills you politically."

He described, and I quote, "a cowering, fearful political culture across the country" – fear of personal repercussions, if you have challenged Murdoch's interests, and said that Murdoch's print media had "a disproportionate impact on setting the day's overall agenda", using a "masterful conflation of 'opinion' with 'news'." Such media environment, of course, erodes trust in Government.

If you look at Britain, the baleful influence of media in British politics is well-documented. Look at the Guardian report in 2011. It said: "Blair 'paid court' to Murdoch, securing Murdoch's patronage", Murdoch gave Blair the power to shut out detractors, used his newspapers to help Blair beat down his rival, Brown. Brown, on the other hand, used Daily Mail as a platform.

And Murdoch was opposed to the EU. When asked why, Murdoch reportedly said, "When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice." Murdoch has since denied saying it but the City Editor of The Times, Hilton, has stood by his account of what Murdoch said to him.

Kevin Rudd made the point that "Murdoch made Brexit possible because of the position taken by his papers." Not just Murdoch's papers; others as well. And, with your permission, Mr Speaker, may I display slides on the LED screen?

Mr Speaker: Yes, please. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]

Mr K Shanmugam: Steven Barnett is a prominent parliamentary advisor and Professor of Communications in the UK. He said, "In the lead up to the June 23 European Union referendum, British mainstream media failed spectacularly. Led, inevitably, by the viscerally anti-EU Daily Mail, Sun, Daily Express, Telegraph, most of Britain's national press indulged in little more than a catalog of distortions, half-truths and outright lies. It was a ferocious propaganda campaign in which facts, sober analysis sacrificed to the ideologically driven objectives of editors and other proprietors."

The Pro-Leave Camp in UK – The Daily Mail, The Daily Express, The Sun, The Daily Telegraph – combined readership of 28 million, used sensational headlines; outright lies. Sunday Express said "12 million Turks would move to the UK" if Turkey joined the EU; a complete falsehood. Later, it admitted it was inaccurate

Government on the one side; people on the other; media is intermediary. If the media regularly trade in lies to attack the Government without basis, this happens – trust in Government goes down. Institutions will be severely damaged.

And the media can destroy institutions. An example of a great institution that is being savaged is the UK Courts, among the best in the world. I have spoken about this in the House previously. I do not wish to go into it but I have, in the attachment, set out how the British media have severely damaged the British judiciary. [Please refer to Annex 1.]

Traditional media holds power over society's information. It has the ability to influence minds and viewpoints. When media acts responsibly, it serves democracy. When they do not, it damages democracy.

So, in many countries, traditional media has played a big role, in the loss of trust.

I spoke about inequality, inequity, political systems not delivering results, media abusing its power, new media being abused. I have sketched out the first three. New media is the subject of this Bill. I will come back to it and deal with it in greater detail.

But let me first complete the larger point on the consequences of the four aspects coming together. Members can then see what happens when you do not deal with the very real dangers of these developments.

In an active democracy, the foundations include: trust, free speech and the infrastructure of fact. The four elements I referred to, have combined, like a battering ram, to damage, destroy these foundations.

When people lose trust, when they lose faith, when there is no proper public discourse, when infrastructure of fact is damaged, then democracy, societies are at serious risk.

Populism will then rise. Violence will rise, particularly towards the minorities, the weak. The ability of countries to face challenges will be weakened. The crisis of trust in many countries has opened wide the doors to dangerous, destructive politics, populism. Populism both exploits and deepens the loss of faith in the system, making it harder for institutions to correct, and to find solutions.

Gallup has said, and I quote, when people hold "low trust in government and low or static expectations for their future lives", support for populist, anti-establishment politics increases. A politics that can – and has, in some countries – destroy democracy and replace it with corruption.

The 2017 Edelman Trust Barometer drew a direct link between the lack of trust in public institutions and these populist movements. Forty-four percent of those who voted to leave the EU believed the system was failing, and held fears about at least one major societal issue, compared with 20% of those who wanted to remain in the EU.

Populists used these fears as ammunition to feed the crisis of trust in institutions. And 2016 saw populist movements make major gains. The Eurasia Group said populism is a force in US politics. And in Europe, populist political parties are getting close to or are in government positions in several countries. Populism also reigns in some Latin American countries and has gained footholds in Asia.

And the assessment by the Eurasia Group is populism is "likely to intensify and spread over the coming decade, weakening governments and de-legitimising political leaders as a consequence."

The result will be a set of unyielding, centrifugal forces, creating a global environment described by the Eurasia Group as "the most dangerous it it has been in decades"

This is the serious situation that faces many countries, and we will face it as well. That is why I referred to Gotterdammerung earlier.

Many issues: inequality, inequity, political system, failing to deliver, traditional media, new media, the impact leading to loss of trust and to populism. We have to avoid this trajectory, which means we have to deal with each of these issues.

This Bill is an attempt to deal with one part of the problem: The serious problems arising from falsehoods spread through new media. And to try and help support the infrastructure of fact and promote honest speech in public discourse. It is an important part, even as we work on the other aspects.

Now, I turn to falsehoods and new media. Many societies, including ours, are pluralistic and diverse, with competing interests and identities, with religious diversity as well. Various interest groups – NGOs and other associations are there. Each pursues its interests, causes and passions. Such diversity is never easy to navigate. It can give rise to instability and conflict.

James Madison, one of America's founding fathers, argues that the "factions" in a diverse society cannot be controlled. Only the effects of such factions can be countered. Decision-making with diversity is not always easy. And a key foundation of a democracy is public discourse.

Ideally, public discourse will help citizens understand complex policy issues. It will guide policy-makers to make optimal decisions. It will shape differing viewpoints and expand common ground.

But public discourse can only take place when there is free and responsible speech.

The pre-requisites for national conversations are a common vocabulary, an underpinning of facts and that provides a platform for accommodation and compromise amongst diverse voices in society.

A critical piece of infrastructure in these conversations is fact, and the infrastructure of fact.

Like public infrastructure, society depends on it. It provides society with a shared reality. This is necessary so that we can have diversity without conflict, and public participation, while still getting decisions made. Without it, our political system will malfunction.

William Davies, the English sociologist and political economist has said, and I quote, "The fact that millions of people are able to believe the same things about reality is a remarkable achievement, but one that is more fragile than is often recognised."

A critical reason for this remarkable achievement, and I quote Davies again, is: "something so ubiquitous, so ordinary, that we scarcely ever stop to notice it: trust.”

This is the trust that when public institutions – the Government, the media and other institutions – share a piece of information with the public, they do so honestly.

Trust in public institutions is a cornerstone of the infrastructure of fact. The belief in the authenticity of the source, whether it be the media, the Government, experts or other authoritative sources, makes society accept facts. Authenticity, of course, has to be earned, maintained. And if an usually trusted source is not telling the truth, there must be avenues to expose and there must be consequences.

So that rigour helps in maintaining authenticity. People will then believe, if it said, it is likely to be true. And if not true, it will be exposed.

These are amongst the foundations on which modern societies are based. They are bigger than the Government of the day. They are bigger than any political party. This is about the basic structure of society

New media has been heavily exploited to batter this infrastructure of fact which in turn, weakens trust in public discourse, in institutions, in democracy itself.

I will now set out how falsehoods have been weaponised to attack the infrastructure of fact, to destroy trust, and to attack societies.

New media is an information super highway. It has got many by ways, links to different groups in society, and to everyone. It has now been used to send out on an industrial scale, falsehoods, to mislead people. Broad sections targeted, but also specific groups targeted, and individuals are targeted.

The attack using falsehoods on social media comes from several sources: (a) foreign countries using information warfare; (b) profit-driven actors; (c) deliberate actors, for political ends; and (d) people with prejudices, seeking to harm other groups. The Select Committee noted this. So, let us look at some sources of falsehoods.

First, foreign countries. There is a military doctrine that has been developed for the Internet age. General Gerasimov, Russia’s military Chief of Staff, there is a doctrine named after him called the Gerasimov Doctrine. Basically, he says, the "rules of war" have changed. Non-military measures, including information operations, they can be harnessed to, in turn harness what he calls the "protest potential of the population". What does it mean? Information operations can target and create internal opposition as a "permanently operating front" throughout the target country. These non-kinetic military measures, in many cases, can exceed, as his doctrine says, the power of force and weapons. Even though military or overt violent measures are not being used, the target states’ national sovereignty and security are threatened and violated. In this way, the lines between war and peace have now blurred and wars no longer have to be declared.

Security experts gave evidence to the Select Committee. Dr Shashi Jayakumar said that in modern information warfare, "seeding internal opposition within the target country is extremely important." And he said that "technological tsunami" has given aggressor states the ability to "subvert individual slices" of the target country in a manner unthinkable just two to three decades ago. A national security expert from Latvia, Dr Janis Berzins, said that the notion of a broken social contract is the main vulnerability exploited by foreign adversaries. In his words: "It is easier for the adversary to achieve its objectives if the society of the state being attacked believes that their country is a failed state that does not care for the interests and needs of the population, and the loss of current statehood will bring better living conditions."

Singapore is a specific and vulnerable target for some very precise reasons. It has military superiority in this region – experts said this. That superiority in conventional military forces means it will be futile to start a war with Singapore. And, therefore, militarily weaker countries will then focus on other means to weaken Singapore, sap our will from inside, create deep internal divisions and keep us in a permanent state of internal dissension.

The evidence is that this is already happening. The Select Committee heard it. We know it is happening even though we do not come out in public and say it very openly. It is happening to sap people’s support for the SAF, for defence, to try and shift Singapore’s foreign policy as well. These are not issues that we should dismiss lightly.

Just assuming we go on the basis of the evidence that was presented at the Select Committee, it has happened elsewhere and I will give you some evidence of how it has happened. Take Ukraine. A foreign country, which the Select Committee did not really name, used falsehoods to build a narrative that the Ukrainian government was fascist and corrupt. It spread online falsehoods about atrocities being carried out against a particular community in Ukraine. For example, that Ukrainian soldiers had crucified a child, which was later debunked. Volunteers who fought against Ukraine said they were motivated because of these supposed atrocities. Consequences? Loss of sovereignty, part of territory, loss of lives.

If you take the Czech Republic, disinformation operation by a foreign country was used to turn domestic sentiments in favour of a foreign state’s geopolitical goals. One objective was to make people believe that the US was responsible for the influx of Syrian refugees into Europe and the conflict in Ukraine. The disinformation appears to have had some impact. In 2016, 50.2% of Czechs believed that the US was responsible for Syrian refugees coming to Europe, 38% believed that the Ukrainian crisis was caused by the US and NATO. So, it was done to weaken Czech support for NATO and Ukraine.

Take Germany. If it can happen in the UK and if it can happen in Germany, I believe it can easily happen here. A girl fabricated a claim that she had been assaulted by three Middle Eastern migrants. Foreign media outlets reported on that widely, suggesting it was true, specifically from one country. Reports were then spread on social media. The Berlin authorities investigated, confirmed the girl’s claim had been fabricated. But falsehoods were circulated online that the police had failed to follow up on the case. Thousands demonstrated on the streets to "expose" the government’s attempts to cover up the crimes perpetrated by the refugees. That same year, a far-right populist party made unprecedented gains in the regional elections and most of its support came from the same minority constituency as the girl who made the rape claims.

Sweden. A Swedish defence agency said false information about subjects, such as NATO, immigration and terrorism, are spread "on a daily basis in Sweden."

In many of these countries, trust is being eroded in institutions, populism is on the rise. Since Russia’s name had come up in the media, the Select Committee invited Russia to help us and the Russian Embassy very helpfully sent us a letter that Russia is also very concerned about fake news and has been a victim of fake news. So, we have no doubt that Russia takes this matter very seriously.

Next, apart from foreign state actors, commercial profit is another dimension. Digital advertising models have turned websites into virtual real estate. So, value depends on the attention attracted, with every click, every view, digital ad revenue is earned. This business model has created an attention economy, content that stokes fear and anger and good for attracting attention. Falsehoods can help people earn large sums of money and have political impact.

In the US, an American named Paul Horner set up at least 20 fake news websites. Some used deceptive URLs. It tricked readers into thinking that they were mainstream sources like ABC News or CNN. He was prolific. He used his websites to publish fake stories, stoke partisan engagement, claimed that they were satirical, said he assumed people would fact-check. But many did not, and they were fooled. Some examples of his falsehoods: during a Government shutdown, President Obama used his own money to keep open a government-funded Muslim culture museum. Fox News reported the story as a fact, before retracting it. False article: protestors were paid to protest against Mr Trump; re-tweeted by the Trump campaign; 20 million Amish people had committed to vote for Mr Trump, turned up in Google News, had 750,000 page views in two days. He made $10,000 a month from Google AdSense. He was opposed to President Trump but targeted conservatives with his fake stories because he found it more profitable. A BuzzFeed news investigation found a network of at least 43 websites which together published more than 750 fake news articles – a small study. All of them used Google AdSense to earn digital advertising revenue.

Towards the end of the 2016 US presidential elections, a small town in Macedonia became well-known as the registered home of at least 100 pro-Trump websites filled with sensational falsehoods. Macedonians experimented with different target audiences. Fake stories could gain the most traction amongst Trump supporters, they found. Sometimes they wrote their own articles, but often would just reuse falsehoods from alt-right websites in the US. In the four months leading up to the elections, one young Macedonian earned nearly US$16,000 from the two websites he ran. For five or six hours of work he could earn about $1,000 a month. So, as Samanth Subramanian, a reporter with Wired, said, "This is the… disturbing heart of the affair: that the Internet made it so simple for these young men to finance their material whims and that their actions helped deliver such momentous consequences."

Third category, deliberate individual actors. You had foreign state actors; you had people doing it for money; now, people who do it deliberately, and groups. The Select Committee found that in several countries, both local and foreign civilians had spread falsehoods for political causes, affecting both their own countries and other countries as well. Example again – far-right, nationalist groups, promoting more extreme politics. Domestic alt-right in the US used falsehoods, drove major false narratives during the 2016 US presidential elections. More recently, in 2018, in the Brazilian presidential elections, local far-right groups coordinated a network of fake social media accounts, spread misinformation in support of right-wing candidates.

Populists use lies to attack institutions, invoke divisive rhetoric. They use conspiracy theories to explain complex issues in simple terms and trying to make people believe them.

Truth then becomes completely irrelevant. Even the most extreme lies which we might think people will normally dismiss, become believed and it impacts very badly on public life.

British historian and journalist Anne Applebaum said this about populist movements: "They don’t require belief in a full-blown ideology...most of them don’t deploy propaganda that conflicts with everyday reality. And yet…all of them encourage their followers to engage, at least part of the time, with an alternative reality."

In the UK, falsehoods were spread extensively during the EU Referendum. Immigration was a key issue. I spoke earlier about false claims in traditional media about Turks, Turkey and Brexit. Digital advertisements were also run by the Leave EU Campaign that Turkey was joining the EU, 12 million Turks would in that event move to the UK, if it remained in the EU.

Foreign interference was also at play. Fake foreign-linked accounts posted more than 45,000 messages about Brexit in the 48 hours during the referendum. A large part of the foreign-linked content related to refugees and immigration. False stories. Stories of illegal migrants attacking women, concocted. But these falsehoods were used to create an alternative reality. If you believed them, you would believe there was a conspiracy by the ruling elite to turn the UK and Europe into a Muslim caliphate. Muslims were campaigning for Sharia law to govern the UK, the Mayor of London, a Muslim, was sponsoring them and, in the UK, there are areas where Sharia law dominates and non-Muslims cannot enter. Sounds outlandish. Who will believe? The British are very sensible people. But even the British fell for it.

In 2018, YouGov did a survey of over 10,000 people, so it was a substantial survey. Thirty-two percent believed the falsehood about "no-go" areas under Sharia rule in the UK. Forty-nine percent of those who voted to leave the EU stated that this was true. It also created a permissive environment for hate. In the month after the referendum, there was a 41% spike in hate crimes and the majority of crimes were motivated by race, including crimes against migrants.

Brexit altered the course of British history. It was one of the most important events in their recent history. A massive falsehood campaign may well have affected the outcome. An investigative report in The Guardian by a British journalist, Caroline Cadwalladr explained. She went to a town in Wales that probably received more EU funds than any other town and which still voted to leave the EU. Sixty-two percent of them voted to leave. In this town, the EU was funding a 350 million pound regeneration project, a 33 million pound college for further education, which had 29,000 apprenticeships for young people to learn a trade, a 77 million pound road improvement scheme and a 30 million pound railway line. The town had one of the lowest immigration rates in the country. It was in Wales, which was a net EU beneficiary.

But when Caroline interviewed the people in the town, she discovered the existence of an alternative reality. People believed the town was sending more money to the EU than it was receiving. The EU had not only done nothing for the town, it had also brought a huge immigration problem, including from Turkey. The Welsh town had been a left-wing Labour stronghold. Yet, the people were repeating information usually found in right-wing newspapers. She discovered that they were getting their information or misinformation from targeted digital ads on Facebook.

One of the most controversial claims in the UK during the referendum was that the UK sends 350 million pounds a week to the EU. Not only plastered on buses but also run as digital ads aimed at specific groups of voters. The UK Statistics Authority said the figure was likely closer to 136 million pounds per week. Despite the corrections, a 2018 King’s College London study found 42% of the people who had heard this claim believed it to be true and 22% were unsure. Only 30% correctly believed that it was false. For a referendum that may have irreversibly altered the course of British history, these are serious consequences.

In the US as well, falsehoods and lies have been spread on a massive scale. A study from Stanford University shows that, on average, each American adult read about three false stories in the months leading up to the 2016 US elections. And the researchers that compiled the fake stories that had been debunked by fact-checking websites found that these falsehoods were shared about 38 million times, leading to around 760 million engagements with the content. And the false narratives were driven by the people who identified with the home-grown alternate-right movement.

Largely sought to denigrate the establishment, attack Mrs Clinton’s campaign. Also at play: sophisticated foreign information campaign that sought to influence the outcome; undermine democratic institutions and the democratic ideals. There was the conspiracy theory that Mrs Clinton and other top Democrats were part of a child paedophilia ring operating out of a Pizza restaurant in Washington, DC. Sounds completely crazy. Utterly unbelievable if you think about it. The rumours began on Twitter, spread to other websites and online forums. Claims got louder, hacked emails from Mrs Clinton’s campaign were distorted to support the conspiracy theory. An American man showed up at the Pizza restaurant to “self-investigate” and he brought a gun along with him. People demonstrated in front of the White House declaring that the theory was real.

The falsehoods helped to create an alternate reality, one where a "deep state" existed within US institutions, which was conspiring against the American people and, if you are a part of this echo chamber, you would be told that then-President Obama was colluding with the UK spy agency to spy on Mr Trump. Mrs Clinton was linked to a mysterious explosion that killed one of her employees. And the 2018 Florida school shooting was really a secret government operation. Foreign agents infiltrated, exploited this alt-right movement using fake social media accounts. They pretended to be real Americans, amplified the falsehoods that originated from these websites, targeted echo chambers with claims that Mrs Clinton wanted to apply Sharia law in the US, that Mrs Clinton was actively arming the terrorist group ISIS. The foreign agents also infiltrated other social media movements to spread falsehoods on both sides of issues – they were agnostic about that – and to create more divisions. They amplified the falsehoods, they widened the divides. So, the political ground became fragile, fraught and conducive for foreign agents to operate.

So, the experiences of these two countries show how, through a combination of falsehoods and digital technology, the foundations of democratic society are severely attacked. Falsehoods are used to undermine public trust which is the cornerstone of our infrastructure of fact. They are used to divide and polarise, tearing the social fabric. And democratic discourse, accommodation and compromise become very difficult. In these conditions, the political centre becomes hollowed out and people are driven to extremes.

If you take France, the Yellow Vest movement, at the centre of the movement are these "Anger Groups" on Facebook. They are online hubs for falsehoods. They appeared almost a year before the street protests began in Paris. In the lead-up to the protests, falsehoods were used to increase the sense that the system was failing and turning against the people. Various falsehoods – that the French Constitution had been nullified in 2016 by the then-Prime Minister; that President Macron was going to sign France’s sovereignty away at the UN conference; a million Germans had protested increased fuel prices, that President Macron wrote to Paris police to use force against the protestors and so on. And during the protests, misinformation in Yellow Vest Facebook groups and pages reached over 105 million views and four million shares in five months. Images were falsely captioned as bleeding Yellow Vest protestors and then they were used to make the claim that media and government were hiding police brutality and violence against these protestors.

During the 2016 US Presidential Election, disinformation came from foreign operatives. But in the mid-term elections, such campaigns were more domestic. Americans were targeting other Americans, using the same strategies that are said to have been introduced by the Russians. Sometimes, activists worked with foreign states. The Select Committee Report has pointed out that state actors have formally coordinated with, co-opted other private-sector actors, including private industry, civil society organisations, fringe movements, volunteers who ideologically support their cause. The Select Committee Report also mentioned an Asian country, it did not name it. It is said to have an online cyber army and volunteers who promote the government’s policies and attack those who criticise those policies.

Social media has also enabled hate to thrive. Falsehoods are often centrepieces of hate propaganda and, over the past few years, people have used online falsehoods to promote anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim prejudice. After the terrorist attack in Paris in 2015, a video was posted, described as showing "Moderate Muslims" celebrating the attack. It was actually a video of people celebrating a cricket match victory in Pakistan. But nearly 500,000 views within a few hours. Video was spread again after the terrorist attack in Paris in 2017 with the same false caption.

The terror attack at Westminster in London in 2017: it became viral. It is a photograph of a Muslim woman walking past victims. She was on her phone, face hidden from view, was falsely accused of ignoring the victims and treating the attack casually. Later, it was later discovered that the tweet originated from a fake foreign account.

When moderate Muslims demonstrated against terrorism in London, a false story was spread that the demonstration was staged. And in April this year, falsehoods were used to turn the Notre Dame fire into an anti-Muslim narrative. A fabricated quote, ascribed to a Muslim US senator saying "they reap what they sow". A video of Notre Dame burning with shouts of "Allahu Akbar" edited over.

In Indonesia, a "Muslim Cyber Army" used falsehoods and hate speech to inflame sentiments against gays, Chinese. We have also seen this in Germany, Italy and Brazil and all have rising populism, no coincidence. The psychological evidence is that mere exposure to conspiracy theories, even if they are dismissed, makes people less likely to accept official information or engage in politics.

Conspiracy theories harm trust in institutions overall, not just the specific institutions that they relate to. And, so, people mistrust the very existence of an infrastructure of fact and disengage from public discourse altogether. So, as William Davies said, "…when trust sinks beneath a certain point, many people may come to view the entire spectacle of politics and public life as a sham…"

So in the digital age, almost anyone can make a falsehood go viral, or run a disinformation campaign. It has happened in Sri Lanka. In India, child abduction rumours spread on WhatsApp – 69 mob attacks, 33 deaths. In Mexico, same child abduction rumours, horrific lynching of two men. This year, in France, child abduction rumours targeting the Roma people led to several violent attacks on the Roma.

Harm to public health when falsehoods are spread about health care. Financial markets can be affected very quickly. A false tweet that the White House had been bombed led to a massive fall in the stock market. So, examples are innumerable. In every country, this is happening. No one can disagree that this is a serious threat and that it has to be dealt with head on.

I will say this to Members of this House on both sides and the Nominated Members of Parliament that even when this happens in Singapore, there will be a deep damage to the institutions which are beyond and above politics. We are seeing this happen before our very eyes in other countries which normally you could have assumed to be stable, much more stable than Singapore, much bigger than Singapore. And if that happens, that will damage society beyond repair. So, there is no benefit to anyone, regardless of any political persuasion. There is no benefit to see this happen because there is no benefit, whether political or otherwise, in seeing this happen. For anyone.

What are the tools that such actors use and what is the cost of such tools? Digital technology has given falsehoods a new power. The Select Committee found "…considerable evidence was given showing how modern digital technology has made the creation and dissemination of falsehoods easier, cheaper, more profitable, transforming it."

I will mention three tools: fake accounts; digital advertising; and algorithms used by platforms to rank content.

Fake accounts have been described as "foot soldiers" of disinformation. They may be run either by humans known as "trolls", or may be automated, in which case, they are called "bots". Fake social media accounts manufactured to manipulate. Some of them cultivate persuasive online personas, gain followers, both real and fake, and used as fictitious leaders of public opinion, using falsehoods to sway minds, create impressions of public sentiment. Bots are used to artificially amplify falsehoods – megaphone for falsehoods. They draw attention to falsehoods, affirm them and make them appear to be more believable.

Digital advertising tools are used to target falsehoods at susceptible segments of the population. Search engine results manipulated so that false articles are prioritised. Online echo chambers are created and exploited. Social media groups and online chats are used to polarise and mobilise people to orchestrate conflict. Falsehoods today travel easily and widely across multiple platforms. In 2017, a news article that a Russian aircraft had managed to electronically disable a US warship was posted on a Russian state-controlled news site. The article used a parody that had been published a few years before and presented it as truth. You can see how it is not just the labels that matter. People can be made to believe that parody is, in fact, true. So, you need to look at the material objectively.

So, this slide, designed to glorify Russia, undermine confidence in the US Navy. In two days, it was picked up by mainstream outlets in the US and Europe. You can see how it spread. [Please refer to Annex 2.] In less than seven days, cross-posted on dozens of news sites and their social media pages, catered to different countries and demographics. Fox News’ version was shared over 27,000 times. The Sun’s version was shared over 10,000 times. Some of the more prominent examples over the last three years.

In 2016 Brexit: research suggests that bots were generating up to 20% of Brexit-related tweets in the months leading to the Referendum, including anti-Muslim falsehoods.

In the 2016 US Presidential Election, a foreign troll factory conducted a disinformation campaign using 50,000 bot accounts, over 3,800 Twitter accounts and at least 470 fake Facebook accounts. Facebook’s best estimate from 2015 to 2017, approximately 126 million people may have received content from accounts associated with this troll factory.

In the 2017 French Presidential Elections, emails from then-candidate Emmanuel Macron’s campaign were hacked and leaked. So, #Macronleaks hashtag was used to guide Twitter users to false claims that the leaked emails showed evidence of illegal activity by Macron. Hashtag was then amplified through a network of trolls and bots and reached 47,000 tweets in less than four hours after the initial tweet.

"Coordinated inauthentic behaviour" by fake accounts was also seen in the US' 2018 mid-term elections; 2018 Brazilian Presidential Elections; the US anti-vaccine debate; and in Indonesia.

Fake accounts have been used in very sophisticated ways. A Twitter account belonging to one "Jenna Abrams" was created in 2014. This appeared to belong to a young American woman. Once she had built a following, she pushed a divisive set of views on immigration and Mr Trump, especially closer to the 2016 Elections. At one point, she had over 70,000 followers, quoted by dozens of high-profile media outlets, including The Washington Post, BBC and the New York Times. But it turned out to be a fake account created by a foreign troll agency.

The Twitter account impersonating the Tennessee Republican Party, also created by the same agency, spread falsehoods: President Obama had admitted he was Muslim; an employee of Clinton’s was killed in a mysterious explosion in Washington and Clinton was involved. At one point, it had over 152,000 followers. The real Tennessee Republican Party account had less than 14,000 followers.

So, trolls, bots, can and have been used in Singapore. We have noticed these spikes in activity from inauthentic accounts when we have discussions on various issues of public concern. One example, whenever there is a bilateral issue with Malaysia, these go up. We recently estimated that it went up by 30%. Such activity creates alternate realities. It manipulates perception, creates the impression that there are many voices, shouts down other viewpoints through fake accounts, shifts public opinion, erodes trust and undermines institutions.

If you turn to digital advertising, it is done to sway public opinion used on both sides of the Atlantic. Foreign operatives were using it in a disinformation operation to influence the US Elections. It was also used by the Vote Leave campaign in the UK. These tools allow messages to be micro-targeted with a high degree of precision at specific groups based on a variety of indicators, including people’s fears and prejudices. They are able to do so because the personal data of each user is harvested by platforms like Facebook. In the US, foreign operatives used US$100,000 to spread Facebook advertisements to 126 million Americans. It is inexpensive compared with traditional advertising. Almost 2,000 ads used interest-based targeting and, of those, 800 were geographically targeted, including at swing states. Remember, in some swing states, the margin of victory was in the tens of thousands.

In the UK, the Vote Leave campaign spent more than 2.7 million pounds on targeted advertisements. Targeted digital advertising was used in these campaigns because it was effective. Study by network theorists showed when falsehoods are initially aimed at those predisposed to believe them, they spread further. Another troubling aspect of targeted advertising is that it is hidden from public view. Others cannot see the falsehoods being spread, they are unable to step in to correct them. And again, as British journalist, Carole Cadwallader, said in a Ted Talk: "…this entire referendum took place in darkness, because it took place on Facebook. And what happens on Facebook stays on Facebook, because only you see your news feed, and then it vanishes, so it's impossible to research anything. So we have no idea who saw what ads, what impact they had, what data was used to target these people. Or even who placed the ads, how much money was spent, even what nationality they were."

Third, the algorithms. They can play a big role in promoting falsehoods. Roger McNamee, who was an early investor and advisor to Facebook, said this about the 2016 US Elections: "Facebook’s algorithms have played a huge role in this election cycle by limiting each member’s news feed to 'things they like', which effectively prevents people from seeing posts that contradict their preconceptions. Trolls on both sides have exploited this bug to spread untruths and inflame emotions."

Platforms’ algorithms have boosted conspiracy theories, false claims to the top of search results, recommendation lists and news feed rankings. By giving them prominence, the falsehoods are made to seem more credible. Ranking does matter. One study found that manipulating search engine results to favour one candidate over another can alter voter preferences by 20%.

This spread of falsehoods is also aided by service providers in a growing commercial disinformation industry. Cybersecurity firm TrendMicro gave evidence before the Select Committee of the going rates for tools and services. I have put it in your documents. [Please refer to Annex 3.] It spread falsehoods. One million Instagram "likes" – just pay US$18, you can get one million "likes". One hundred Twitter followers, likes, or re-tweets, 34 cents. One hundred YouTube subscribers, 66 cents. Make a falsehood appear on a YouTube main page for two minutes, US$621. Make false content appear on legitimate news sites as if it is real, costs a bit more, US$20,000. To use online propaganda to instigate a street protest in the US, US$200,000, but you can actually get a street protest. There are also "hired guns" who spread disinformation for their clients in return for a reward, a market opportunity.

In Latin America, you have Andres Sepulveda convicted of rigging elections throughout Latin America in return for payment from clients. He used the cyberspace to spread falsehoods on key domestic issues and policies. Indonesian authorities uncovered one such syndicate, Saracen Cyber Team. Just one. There are so many of them.

Next, who is misled by these falsehoods? In a 2018 survey by Ipsos, a global independent market research agency, on Singaporeans, 91% of Singaporean respondents could not correctly identify one or more of five false headlines presented to them. Falsehoods work. They work in a complex manner. They take advantage of the attention spans, mental shortcuts, cognitive biases of reasonable, rational people. So, every day, all of us decide which issues to give our time and attention. A lot of the information we come across, we make quick judgements, based on who it comes from, how aligned it is with what we know and believe. These are the human loopholes that falsehoods seek to exploit.

People’s socio-political identities can play a key role in why people believe and share falsehoods. It is consistent with psychological studies on confirmation bias. So, Members can see from all this that in the Digital Age, the conditions supporting a Shared Reality have fundamentally changed. From a main artery sustained by mainstream newspapers, public discourse is fragmenting into millions of social media groups and conversations. Mainstream media was likened by law professor Dr Thio Li-Ann to a public street. On this street, she said, "you might encounter not only friends, but a … variety of people engaged in a wide array of activities."

In this system, people are made to see and show civility towards viewpoints they may not otherwise like and choose to see. But social media does the opposite. It is designed to connect people with whom they want to be connected with, usually people they know or like, or who are like-minded. They allow people to cut themselves off from the views and information they do not like.

The Select Committee heard testimony from Dr Simon Hegelich and Mr Morteza Shahrezaye, the political data scientists. Dr Hegelich had advised German Chancellor Angela Merkel. They described the use of social media for public discourse as "an enormous misfit in design". On social media, communication is guided by private affinity and emotions. It is designed to be convenient. A world of likes, emoticons, memes and captions. But, as Dr Hegelich put it: "…political discourse should not be convenient. In democracies, politics should be the result of debates, which are often arduous, because a compromise between legitimate interests has to be found."

In the aftermath of the 2016 US Election, a group of academics from America’s leading universities gathered to reflect on the problem of fake news. One of their key conclusions was this, and I quote: "Current social media systems provide a fertile ground for the spread of misinformation that is particularly dangerous for political debate in a democratic society." For those who favour politics of polarisation, politics of misinformation over one of cohesion and reason, these conditions are ideal.

So, let us move on. Can we expect self-regulation by tech companies? Tech companies play a key role in all of this. They provide the platforms from which falsehoods and other content are spread. They have held themselves out as making the world a better place. Can they be relied upon to self-regulate? The evidence over the years shows clearly, no.

In Sri Lanka, Facebook’s years of inaction to hate speech is well-documented. Last year, rumours led to ethnic violence, mosques were burnt, people were attacked, a State of Emergency was declared. Facebook users lodged thousands of complaints over hate speech and Facebook did nothing. One post, and I quote, only one of many such posts: "Kill all Muslims, don’t even let an infant of the dogs escape." In the midst of on-going violence, what was Facebook’s response to this? "We have looked over the post. It doesn’t go against one of our specific community standards."

The Sri Lankan Communications Minister highlighted a tweet from this user as well. Last year, in London, Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong questioned the Facebook’s representative on this post. I would like to show the video of that questioning. With your leave, Sir. [A video was shown to hon Members.]

Can we rely on self-regulation? Two weeks ago, in Colombo, Sri Lanka, terrorist bombings, more than 200 people killed. The terrorist leader had made videos to gain thousands of followers, called for attacks against other religious groups, led to several previous attacks. But YouTube and Facebook removed the videos only after the Easter bombings. You see the slides of the photos of the victims. So, what do we say to them? "Sorry, we made a mistake"? As Mr Allan said to Edwin Tong, "Sorry, we made a mistake"?

Big Tech have continuously refused take down hate speech, ban groups promoting hate speech. As one American journalist put it: "Facebook’s world, Facebook’s rules." The fact is that the more users, more content on their platforms, the more user attention they can sell to advertisers, and the more they can profit. They are profit-making entities. Ferocious. Will they voluntarily change their business models? They have also created a permissive online environment for hate. You saw what happened in New Zealand. Something happened similar just a week ago. Copycat shooting in California in a synagogue where the whole thing was live streamed. Attacks in New Zealand were live streamed.

The Chair of the UK Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Damian Collins said, it was a "terror attack designed for social media", demonstrated why there had to be statutory regulation for social networks. Only now, Facebook has banned white nationalism from its platforms.

In the 2016 US Elections, 470 Facebook accounts used by foreign actors reached an estimated 126 million Americans. Facebook was questioned by the US Senate on whether they had plans to ban the purchase of ads using payments made in foreign currency. Facebook could not give a straight answer. Last year, I asked the same question during the Select Committee hearings. And, again, no straight answer.

Twitter, two years after the US Election, most of the accounts linked to the foreign disinformation campaign were found to be still active. The recent Indonesian General Election platforms helped disinformation spread, take root faster.

In November 2016, Mr Zuckerberg said, "It is a pretty crazy idea" to think that fake news on Facebook had influenced the 2016 US Election. Ten months later when there was clear evidence of serious foreign interference, he apologised for having being dismissive.

In November 2017, Facebook was questioned by the US Senate. They promised to do better but said they would prefer to self-regulate. The recent release of internal EU Commission documents showed that over the last four years, Facebook has pushed back against regulation; consistently said regulation will stifle innovation.

To our Select Committee in March last year, they took the same line. "Prescriptive legislation" would make it harder for Facebook to find the right solutions. So, what right solutions have they found?

In March this year, one day before we tabled this Bill in Parliament, Mr Zuckerberg said regulation against harmful content is needed, the problem too big for them to handle. That is what we are now doing. Facebook made this concession because it had no choice.

In February 2018, a UK parliamentary committee questioned Facebook on whether it had provided user data to Cambridge Analytica, which had used data mining to help political candidates and groups target potential voters. Mr Simon Milner, Facebook’s representative, said to the UK parliament Facebook had not provided such user data to Cambridge Analytica, did not disclose that the user data had been taken by Cambridge Analytica, and he knew of it at the time. I questioned Mr Milner about this during the Select Committee hearing. He then conceded he should have given a more frank answer to the UK committee. Agreed that a reasonable person could take the view that he had not been full and frank in his answers, and had misled the UK committee.

New Zealand’s Prime Minister Ms Jacinda Ardern, has said: "We cannot simply sit back, accept that these platforms just exist and what is said on them is not the responsibility of the place where they are published. It cannot be a case of all profit and no responsibility."

I also read Nominated Member Prof Lim Sun Sun's opinion editorial (op ed) on this point. Her view is that government, big tech and consumers should come together and work in a tripartite fashion rather than relying on legislation alone. Fair point. I have said on this subject as well as other subjects. Legislation provides a framework. By itself, legislation cannot achieve all the needed objectives. A lot of cooperation is needed. Tech companies are not our enemies. They are our partners. We want them to succeed. We want them to do well in Singapore and as well. And we must work with them to solve problems.

But at the same time we need to be quite clear about the dynamics. They are focused on profit. And there is little incentive for them to do things which will affect their profits. In Singapore, they must know, we must make sure they know there is public interest. They can make profit but not at the expense of Singaporeans. And POHA and POFMA seek to provide that framework. And they know Singapore Government cannot be bought. We do not take money from their lobbyists and we mean what we say. They can do business with us honourably. Singapore provides a proper rule of law framework for everyone but they must also be responsible.

Last year's Select Committee proceedings and their dealings with us would have left them in no doubt that they can push back when necessary. Throughout, in good faith, we have had constructive discussions with them. But let me give Members a recent example.

On 4 May, last Saturday, the Managing Director of AIC Jeff Paine published an op ed. AIC is a lobby group for tech companies. And his op ed was full of basic errors. One of the points he made. He referred to clause 61, the exemption clause, and said that this was troubling. This clause gives the power to exempt and really will help tech companies. Because where they cannot comply, they can show reasonable reasons why they cannot comply, exemptions can be given. Since they said this and we have been discussing in general how we can help tech companies when they cannot comply, I asked my Ministry to tell the tech companies, that was on Monday because the op ed came out on Saturday, I told my Ministry officials to tell the tech companies, "You do not think this clause is necessary, right? Okay, I am quite happy to remove. I am speaking in Parliament on Tuesday and if I do not get any response before I speak, I will assume that tech companies do not want this clause". Because how do I tell the Members of this Parliament that this is primarily to help tech companies when they themselves say they do not want it.

What was the response? It was quite swift. Last night, AIC issued a statement. They said they appreciated Senior Minister Edwin Tong's clarification on the exemption clause and they appreciated the Government's efforts to make POFMA technically feasible for tech companies. That is what they need to see from us.

These are not children's games. This is serious business. Tech companies will say many things to try and advocate their position. We have to show them we are fair but also firm; and then they will deal with us in a business-like way. There cannot be and I do not think there is any serious dispute that legislation is necessary. The question is what sort of legislation.

This Bill is based on the Select Committee report which explains what outcomes should be achieved. The Bill seeks to achieve those outcomes. We think the setting out in the Bill will best achieve the outcomes the Select Committee had identified. Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong will go through the specific provisions. I will now deal with some of the criticisms of this Bill.

Ms Han Yong May had a good commentary in Lianhe Zaobao some weeks back. She said: (a) there is nothing wrong with questioning whether the powers under POFMA will be abused; (b) but people should first read the Bill in detail. This is part of responsible speech and if they did, they would understand that certain things people have been saying about it are untrue; and (c) at the same time, she had a piece of advice for the Government. Please understand that some people may be genuinely concerned and do not see shadows and treat them as being purely antagonistic. I think fair points.

The following are some of the points that have been made about the Bill: (a) it gives too much power to the Government; (b) it will have a "chilling effect" on free speech — that phrase again; (c) definition of fact and opinion is not clear; (d) definition of public interest is too wide; (e) difficult to challenge the Minister’s decision.

Let me deal with each.

I explained to Members earlier. The Bill is narrower than the current law in terms of the power this Bill gives to a Minister. If a Minister declares that an article contains falsehoods and asks for a Correction Order to be carried, or in some cases, take down, it is open to challenge in Court. If Minister is wrong, he gets overruled.

And this inaccurate claim is then sought to be backed up by a series of other inaccurate claims.

First, it creates a new crime; spreading of falsehoods is a new crime. That is quite inaccurate. It already exists under section 45 of the Telecoms Act (TA), now under the MOA, and applies to the Internet. TA criminalises falsehoods; the Bill covers the same ground, falsehoods. But in terms of intent, it requires the person to have known or had reason to know not only that it was false, but also that spreading it was likely to prejudice public interest. So, in fact, there are two requirements for knowledge. And both requirements have to be satisfied, even though it is based on having reason to know. Whereas under the TA, it is just sending out of falsehoods.

Second, it is often said that recourse to judicial review is not available under the Bill. Short answer: wrong.

Third, a judge cannot examine the proportionality of a direction. Wrong.

Fourth, power in clause 61 of the Bill to exempt certain persons from the Act can be used for some unstated sinister purpose. This exemption power is a common provision in many pieces of legislation. It is found in the Executive Condominium Housing Scheme Act, Postal Services Act, Active Mobility Act, Dangerous Fireworks Act and a wide variety of laws. I explained, for example, when it is not possible to comply with the Act, due to reasons such as technical impossibility, then we could rely on this.

Next, some academics have said that: (a) truth is relative; (b) impossible to state what is a "fact" as opposed to what is "false and misleading"; and (c) this will affect academic work. Minister Ong Ye Kung will respond on matters specific to academia. I will just say this.

Their concerns appear to be expressed without an understanding of the existing legal position. How this Bill fits in. And I am not sure how many of them are aware of the BA, the TA, the MOA and other legislation.

Just to give you a couple of examples. A law lecturer signed the letter. Did they know know the current legal position? Another signatory, in a recent interview with Civicus, an international NGO, made several completely erroneous statements. He said the Bill defines a "falsehood" tautologically, such that any Government Minister can define a statement as false based on "public interest". These are two different and conjunctive requirements: you have to show it is a false statement of fact, and you have to show it affects public interest. He, unfortunately, seems to conflates the two and says that if it is contradicts to public interest then we can declare it as false. Of course, if you believe that then you will get very worried. I read the interview more than once to try and see that is what he really meant. But that is what the words say. It is very odd. A fairly fundamental error. If that is what the Bill states, it will be quite illogical – "it is false because public interest is involved".

If a Singaporean academic can be mistaken on such a basic point or a set of points, then it is understandable that foreign academics would have signed without an understanding of appreciation of the true position. As I have said, laws that target false statements or facts have been around for a long time.

Meanwhile, in the last 15 years, for the Times Higher Education World University Rankings, NUS went from 18 to eight and NTU went from 50 to 12. There is no legal or logical basis for the concerns that this Bill will stifle academic research specifically. As I said, Minister Ong Ye Kung will respond later on some points.

Then, it has been said: why not define "fact" and state that "opinion" is not covered. We have considered this carefully and decided better not. There is a body of case law on what is "fact" and what is not fact. It is better to rely on existing case law. When there is a dispute, the matter can be dealt with by the Court. So, how else do you decide?

Next, chilling effect. I think this must be one of the most overused phrases. Free speech should not be affected by this Bill. We are talking here about falsehoods, we are talking about bots, we are talking about trolls, we are talking about fake accounts and so on.

Prof Thio Li Ann gave evidence during the Select Committee hearings on the ambit of free speech and whether falsehoods were free speech. She made the following points: not all forms of speech are worthy of equal protection. For example, if you falsely cry "fire" in a crowded theatre, that is not protected as valuable speech; UK House of Lords' judgement: "There is no human right to disseminate information that is not true. No public interest is served by communicating misinformation. The working of a democratic society depends on the members of that society being informed and not misinformed. Misleading people, purveying as facts statements which are not true is destructive of the democratic society". Where speech does not serve the justifications for free speech, by harming the search for truth or by preventing citizens from becoming informed of issues – that does not warrant protection.

Next, the definition of "public interest" is too wide. It is important to remember that the Bill does not cover statements just because they are against the public interest. Those statements must be false statements of fact in the first place. Some have said that the definition of what is in the public interest is too wide, and that it should not include clause 4(f), which relates to the diminution of public confidence in the functions of Government institutions. I have explained earlier in some detail, maybe too considerable a detail, on how slow-drip, online falsehoods seek to break down trust by attacking institutions.

It is important to protect institutions from such falsehoods. And if you look at the point I made many times, you look at the current definition and you look at the existing definition, you decide for yourself which is wider. And then it is said it is difficult to challenge a Minister's decision. I have previously said, the process that will be in place, it will be fast, it will be simplified to allow individuals to appear and present arguments on whether it is true or false. The detailed procedure will be in a subsidiary legislation and that is usual. But I will set out an overview of the process.

First, an aggrieved person must apply to the Minister to cancel a Direction. This is consistent with the usual position of exhausting administrative remedies before resorting to the Courts. We will provide a standard form online for aggrieved persons to use. The form must be sent to an email address which will be set out in the Direction and the relevant Minister must make a decision no later than two days after the form is received, excluding non-working days.

The appeal to court will be similarly quick. The appeal will have to be filed no later than 14 days later. This is up to the applicant. He can file the very next day if he wants, after the Minister decides on the application to cancel a Direction. Simple standard forms will be provided for the appeal documents that an appellant can fill out and file in the Courts. The Courts will be asked to fix the hearing within six days of an application being filed. The appellant must attend before the Duty Registrar to request for an expedited hearing, again in the manner prescribed by the rules of the Court.

The documents will need to be served on the Minister no later than the next day. Again, an email address will be provided for the appellant to serve the documents on the Minister, to make it easy for him. The Minister must then file his or her reply in Court no later than three days after the documents are served as prescribed. As stated earlier, meanwhile, the Court would have already fixed the hearing no later than six days after the date on which the Court first received the application.

To summarise, a person aggrieved by a Direction will have the opportunity to have his or her case heard in the High Court as early as nine days after he initiates a challenge by writing to the Minister.

So, this includes the time the Minister responds, the time for filing, the time for him to file and the time for the Minister to respond and the hearing, that is, beginning to end. If he moves very fast, it can be nine days. They will have to be working days. The Court will continue, of course, to have a general discretion to extend timelines where there is good reason to do so. How long the hearing takes and how long the Court takes to decide are matters for the Courts. Parliament and the Executive cannot intervene in that. We can say when it should be heard; we cannot say when it should be decided. Court fees will be kept very low for individuals. No hearing fees will be charged for the first three days. Further days of hearing will be charged at the usual rate. But even then, the Court will have power to waive fees. But this should not be taken as a licence to abuse the process. Courts will still have the power to deal with parties in the usual manner, including how they conduct themselves.

Assoc Prof Eugene Tan of SMU suggested we use illustrations during the Second Reading to explain the difference between fact and opinion. Good suggestion. So, I asked for some illustrations from groups which we met – CAPE and students from NUS and academics. The list is enclosed and circulated to all Members and will form part of the record. [Please refer to Annex 4.] I will refer to some additional examples.

A Professor of Law states that the death penalty in Singapore does not deter crime, as shown by several studies. These studies present real data. That is a conclusion drawn from the studies. It is a statement of opinion not covered by the Bill. But if that professor refers to a non-existent study, or non-existent data, then it is a false statement of fact.

This example is drawn from a recent incident and was one of the illustrations submitted. A person, say, "A" states that the Government is showing "double standards" by having two different permit regimes to govern public activist events on political issues on the one hand, and a public meet-up by an influencer on the other. It is true that two different permit regimes apply to the two different kinds of events. Therefore, "A's" statement is an opinion and is not covered by the Bill.

However, if "A" says or implies that the same permit rules govern both kinds of events and double standards were applied for the granting of permits, essentially suggesting bias – based on the point that the same legislation and rules apply for both. That is a false statement of fact. It can be covered by the Bill. The remedy would usually be a clarification. Forms of clarification will be set out in subsidiary legislation; basically a link to where the clarification can be found with the statement that the article contains inaccuracies or is false, and reference given to the link to the true facts. And people can read both documents and decide for themselves. It actually encourages a more honest and more open discussion.

Another illustration: an economist states that the home-ownership rate in Singapore is only 9%, and explains that the definition of home ownership used excludes any lease, regardless of whether the lease is nine years or 99 years. That is a conclusion based on a certain methodology. He says that and he sets it out. It is not covered by the Bill. The Government can, of course, disagree with that view. If, however, the economist says that the number of persons who own freehold property in Singapore is X, when it is actually Y, then that is a false statement of fact.

Another illustration: "B" publishes an online article stating that the social welfare system in Singapore has gaps. That conclusion is drawn from interviews with Government officials and social workers. The Government can disagree with the conclusion, but it does not come within the Bill. If, however, B's article says that welfare assistance had been denied to a needy elderly person when assistance had in fact been given, then it is a false statement of fact. So, Members can see that it will be clear when you look at examples. If public interest is affected, then it can come under the Bill. In all of these, it is not enough to show it is false. It must also be affecting public interest. This is a situation where, again, the original article can carry a clarification.

I will use another recent incident to illustrate. In the case relating to Mr Nicholas Lim, there were questions as to why he was not charged. The Police investigated the case, gave a conditional warning. Some made allegations that Mr Lim was not prosecuted because his parents were influential. That was false. His father was a driver in the public transport sector, mother a housewife.

So, the illustrations, once you look at them, I think they are quite clear. The Courts have long dealt with this. It really ought not to be an issue. And we have had this legislation in the books forever.

Next, let me turn to the Notice of Amendment put by the Nominated Members of Parliament. I think it is useful for me to set out our views on the NOA. As I said elsewhere, there is substantial agreement between the Nominated Members and us on the major points of the Bill. The differences we have on the Directions' regime are mainly on matters of process. They have made four proposals.

First, the three Nominated Members have proposed that the Directions provide more specific reasons on falsity and public interest. I agree with the principle underpinning the first part of this proposal. The Government, when it says something is false, must obviously set out the reasons why it is false. And we intend to set this out in subsidiary legislation. When the Directions are given, there must be a statement as to why it is false. And this was intended all along. The legislation is specifically designed for this purpose. Clause 13 allows for subsidiary legislation to be made to set out the requirements for Directions.

It is a question of operationalisation. When a Minister issues a Direction, what kind of information should be contained in that Direction? Why something is false, as I have explained, should be explained in the Direction. What should be the level of detail? I think it is difficult to set out upfront. It must be left in each case what extent of detail should be specified. It is really more appropriate to use subsidiary legislation to set out the requirements. And subsidiary legislation is law and it is public, transparent and open to scrutiny. Separately, on public interest, again, I am not comfortable requiring a setting out of detailed reasons on how a particular course of action serves public interest. The level of detail depends on each case.

It is difficult for Parliament today to envisage what are the types of cases. How are you even going to start setting out what level of detail ought to be set out? You do not even know what the case is about. But you must set out enough detail and, if not, you take the risk of a Court challenge and then you go and explain to the judge. If there is a challenge, the Government will have to show public interest and we will have to explain in Court why the information provided is adequate and depends on whether the Court accepts the explanation. That is the best way of dealing with these things. You cannot go upfront and try to legislate every detail.

Second proposal is to set out in the primary legislation, that appeals to the Minister must be adjudicated without delay. I agree with the policy. It is just a difference on how it should be implemented. Timelines are usually set out in the subsidiary legislation and I have set out what the timelines are that we are going to put in place. This will be in law, by way of subsidiary legislation. And we are going further than what the three Nominated Members have proposed. Their amendment proposes the "Minister shall do everything reasonable to ensure that appeals to the Minister are adjudicated without delay.".... "High Court hearings shall commence as soon as practicable, and that costs to the appellant are minimised”.

Assuming you put these broad principles in legislation without any specifics, what is "as soon as practicable" and what is "without delay"? Court hearings today can take anything within 12 to 18 months, sometimes longer. So, if we had it in six months, is that "as soon as practicable"? Obviously so. So, one should avoid this sort of imprecise language in legislation because Minister shall respond "as soon as practicable" – is that 12 days, 14 days or 30 days? How are you going to challenge? How are you going to say, "Well it takes six months for the hearing to take place." The short answer to that will be, "Well, you know, it is "as soon as practicable" compared to the fact that it takes 18 months now." You really do not want to go into that territory. What you want are precise timelines, the kind of timelines I have given. From the time you send the Notice to the Minister to the time you are in Court, very precise. If you get your act together, nine days. Much clearer.

So, I am arguing against the Government being given more time. I do not think it is good enough simply to say do everything reasonable to decide quickly. You must mandate that the Minister decides within a certain time period and it is not enough for the High Court hearings to commence as soon as practicable. We should set out when the hearings should start.

The third proposal made by the Nominated Members is the proposal to insert key principles into the Act. The three Nominated Members want to insert certain principles. I appreciate the intent underpinning the proposal. But, frankly, without any disrespect, some of the proposals are unworkable and some others are unsuitable for primary legislation. I can understand that they are not lawyers so let me just take them through.

If you look at para (a), it covers the importance of critical thinking to a democracy. The principle is important. It is acknowledged by the Select Committee in recommendations 1 and 2. And it is one of the tools that supports the development of a well-informed public. But you need legislation at the same time and you have got to have legislation work with non-legislative measures. But in the kind of situations we are talking about, there is no question whatsoever that legislation is essential and this Bill is about legislation.

Separately, the Government has committed to a whole series of non-legislative matters; and Parliament can question the different Ministries ranging from education to public education to media literacy, there is a a variety of things. But when there is public interest involved and there is falsehood, and the Nominated Members accept the Bill is necessary, then there can be no argument and the Bill has to be used and the powers under the Act have got to be used. It is necessary then to push out the facts to the public by way of correction to inoculate them against the falsehood.

The evidence is set out in the Select Committee Report – if you look at paras 390 to 396 and 425. You do not get much by adding this to the legislation. You have got to be very clear. The legislation is for this purpose.

Then, there is a group of, I think, proposals which target, a sort of negative list about when statements are not false and when statements are not statements of fact. I understand the intent which is to clarify matters. But if you look at your proposals (b) and (c), they essentially relate to the process of establishing truth and falsehood. As I have said, "Have a care". There is an entire body of law in this area. The law of evidence is there to deal with the question of how facts should be established. The question of how truth or falsity should be established and it should draw from the body of principles that form part of case law. It would not serve the rigour of this process to point out some but not the others. Then, you go and start putting this thing in, you run the risk of trying to take out or deal with some parts of an existing body of law. The Courts will deal with it where necessary.

Similarly, on principle (g), I have already explained why it is preferable to rely on the existing case law.

The third group of statements proposed in (d), (e) and (f) and they essentially relate to proportionality. Proportionality is already incorporated into the requirements of under the Bill and it is stronger than your proposal because when it is incorporated in the Bill, it is part of the legal requirement. Yours are only statements of principles. This is already in the law. So, the legal test already requires that the power can only be exercised when it is necessary or expedient in the public interest to do so. Government has gone one step further, perhaps more than one step further, than what you have proposed.

Finally, principle (d). The Bill only deals with situations where there is a falsehood which affects public interest. So, it would not make sense to suggest that we insist upon non-legislative measures when public interest is at stake because there is a need to respond quickly to counteract the damage. So, does that mean by putting this in that you do not ask for corrections?

And I caution you, it can lead to endless litigation. Let us say the Minister seeks to act under the Bill and there is a principle here; then it can be argued, "Well, you know, in this case you shouldn't act because it's not necessary. You can take non-legislative measures." Someone argues that. It may fail but that can take months. It can create a fair bit of confusion as well. So, we should just be very clear what the Bill provides, what is the framework for the Bill and try not to over-egg the pudding. We run more risks that way. We should have a robust debate here, explain what the Bill is all about, have it as a matter of record in the Hansard and that is used by the Courts as a matter of interpretation.

So, the Nominated Members' concern about enshrining principles in a manner which would bind future governments, I think really is best served by the debate and by the Courts serving as an oversight mechanism and interpreting the provisions in future. But, you know, a future government can always amend. So, that is a separate point.

Finally, there is a proposal for an Independent Council – the fourth amendment. I understand the intent again. It is a good attempt to ensure that the conversation on this important issue continues both on the nature of the problem and how the legislation is implemented. The Government agrees that these conversations should continue.

The question is, is establishing another council the best way? Would it lead to unnecessary bureaucratic bloat? All of the functions of this council can be achieved under the current structure of the Executive and Parliament. On accountability, Ministers, the Executive, are responsible to Members of this House, to Parliament. Every time there is an exercise of power which seems to you to be not clear, you ask questions. You just look at the questions that have been filed since you became Nominated Members, every major issue, anything that happens, from NUS to other areas, you do not need to wait for one year. It is raised immediately and answers are given.

Remember what I said about authenticity. The Singapore public must know this institution works and if there is a question, it will be answered. There has got to be the trust as well and where the trust is not merited, that has got to be exposed as well. Parliament is the representative body. It is meant to work in a democracy in this way where Members of Parliament hold the Ministers accountable and check and ask questions. You do not keep creating bodies and then who checks on them. So, it is really more effective to rely on the strength of our current institutions – direct accountability. And together with accountability with the Courts. So, you have Parliament, you have the Courts. What more do you want? Any time there is a question, it can be challenged in Courts, it can be challenged in Parliament. If you keep getting it wrong, the electorate will have something to say about it.

So, I think I have covered most of the major arguments. I have set out the nature of the philosophical reasons for the Bill at some length –perhaps too considerable a length, for which I apologise. With that, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong.

5.54 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Law (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, Minister has sketched out some of the forces that explain why online falsehoods are real and serious problems, not just to Singapore but for democracies around the world. I will take Members through the key provisions in the Bill. Members who have read the Select Committee report will notice that the Bill tracks closely the Select Committee's findings and recommendations.

The measures in the Bill are designed to address firstly, the impact of falsehoods; and secondly, the reasons underlying why falsehoods have had a severe impact. On the impact of falsehoods, the Select Committee made the following findings.

Falsehoods can have a one off dramatic impact. But low-level falsehoods that have no immediate visible impact can be just as dangerous. This is found in paragraphs 105 to 107 of the Select Committee report.

Minister has explained in detail how falsehoods harm democratic institutions and free speech. The Select Committee goes into this in some detail at paragraphs 121 to 138 of its report.

Falsehoods can also cause serious and sometimes fatal consequences for individuals and for businesses. This is covered in paragraphs 139 to 151 of the Select Committee report.

To understand why falsehoods have had such a serious impact, the Select Committee heard extensive expert evidence on the psychology and mechanisms of how falsehoods work and operate. This can be found at paragraphs 152 to 177 of the Select Committee report.

But let me summarise. The core trick of falsehoods lie in their use to arouse anger, fear and negative emotions. This more effectively exploits cognitive biases. There is also a stark power imbalance between facts and falsehoods. It is very difficult for facts to overcome falsehoods organically. Falsehoods move and take effect quickly, long before corrections can be put in motion. Hence, the importance of putting out corrections swiftly and circulating them vigorously.

The social transformations caused by the digital revolution have given falsehoods renewed power. This was something that the Select Committee also addressed at paragraphs 178 to 185. It is useful to see what this means in the Singapore context. And on that score, the Select Committee looked at it, evaluated, made its findings at paragraphs 208 to 237.

A few of its key findings include: first, that there are increasing signs of the phenomenon in Singapore and evidence of foreign disinformation; two, there is a real risk of slow drip falsehoods exploiting Singapore diversity to damage society in the long term; thirdly, Singapore is also vulnerable due to its regional circumstances. The Select Committee ultimately concluded that such deliberate online falsehoods are a problem that Singapore has to take action against.

How should we respond to this? The Select Committee gave five broad areas for action: first, nurture an informed public; second, reinforce social cohesion and trust; third, promote fact checking; fourth, disrupt online falsehoods; and fifth, deal with threats to national security and sovereignty.

The Select Committee also underscored the importance of having to preserve public trust, something that Minister spoke about at some length. It noted at paragraph 311 of the report that loss of faith in public institutions increased the success of disinformation operations significantly.

There was very detailed discussion as well on legislation. Three broad positions emerged from the representations received. First, that legislation should play a role. A considerable number of experts recommended this. Two, voluntary regulation by technology companies. Three, we take a hands off approach altogether and leave matters to be dealt with organically by the marketplace of ideas.

The Committee considered these positions in some detail. Its findings explained why the theory of the unregulated marketplace idea was based on assumptions that are flawed in the digital age. Why the conduct of tech companies – their are repeated failures and inadequate responses – pointed to a fundamental conflict of interest between their business goals and acting in the public interest. Minister has also covered this point in some detail in his speech.

Essentially, the Committee accepted robust and credible legal analysis showing that existing laws in Singapore were inadequate. It concluded that new laws are needed and, importantly, the Select Committee found that the concerns over free speech could be addressed using a calibrated approach in legislation. This Bill reflects the fundamental principle of calibration.

The Government examined the Select Committee's various findings, some of which I have referred to earlier, and found this approach would be in the long run more supportive of encouraging good quality public discourse and increasing public trust. We thus decided that a new approach is needed. This will be a shift away from the blunt tools that we already have and which many other jurisdictions are considering.

In considering how powers should be exercised, four decision-making models were discussed and considered by the Select Committee. This is set out at paragraphs 364 of the report. The four models are: first, have Courts including an expedited process; or two, an Executive followed by recourse to the Courts; third, an independent body; and fourth, online platforms.

The Select Committee made the following findings: one, that the Broadcasting Act already relies on Executive action; two, judicial process is not fast enough; three, in situations involving public order, national security, public institutions – only the Executive would hold the facts, and facts should be backed up by the Executive’s authority; judicial oversight could assuage concerns over the abuse of Executive power.

The unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee was that the Government should have powers to swiftly disrupt online falsehoods.

Let me now take Members through the key provisions of this Bill.

Consistent with the Select Committee's recommendations, this Bill provides a tool-box of Government powers to address the impact of specific individual falsehoods and source of falsehoods. This implements recommendations 15 and 16 of the Select Committee’s report. It provides regulatory oversight of Internet intermediaries, to ensure that they take effective measures to prevent and combat the problems. This implements recommendations 17 to 20 of the Select Committee’s report.

Let me go into some details and take Members through the various levers in this Bill that deal with the impact of falsehoods. I must emphasise that these levers remedy the impact of falsehoods primarily and not punish wrong-doers. In other words, just because one might receive a Direction does not mean that that person has done something illegal.

I mentioned earlier how the digital revolution has given falsehoods a new power. In particular, the proliferation of social media services, content aggregators, blogs, search engines and other intermediary services, has profoundly changed the way we consume information.

Large majority of the toolkit is therefore designed for platforms, not individual publishers. The Bill also allows for the issuing of Codes of Practice binding the platforms. Minister Iswaran will speak later on this.

The tools fall into the following categories, which closely reflect the Select Committee’s recommendations: one, providing access to and increasing the visibility of corrections, which implements recommendation 12 of the Select Committee report; two, disrupting fake accounts that amplify falsehoods, which also implements recommendation 12. Likewise, discrediting online sources of falsehoods; and finally, the levers which cut off financial incentives of online sources of falsehoods which implements recommendation 15.

Let me elaborate on the powers that target falsehoods.

The Minister will be empowered to issue Directions against falsehoods, where it is in the public interest to do so. The Courts will have the final say over what is false.

The provisions are divided into two fairly self-contained Parts: Part 3 for individual publishers and Part 4 for the platforms, which are the "persons" covered under this section of the Bill which are the Internet intermediaries, and mass media service providers such as newspapers, broadcasters, and telecommunications service providers.

Let me outline the corrections regime.

In line with this new approach I mentioned earlier, the primary tool that we intend to use, is the power to give people direct access to corrections. In other words, the falsehood stays up. People will then have access to both the falsehood and the corrections, and they can decide for themselves. In such a case, the Directions add to and not remove the discourse.

In general terms, the corrections powers will require a person to "tag" a falsehood with a correction, or amplify a correction generally. These powers are needed because of the difficulty of getting corrections to overcome the reach of falsehoods. The Select Committee’s report cover the findings on this issue in great detail, at paragraphs 171 to 177.

Let me just highlight a few.

First, by way of example, the Select Committee cited a 2018 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) that false news was 70% more likely to be re-tweeted than true news. The Select Committee also cited a very interesting study by a tech start-up examining a rumour in 2017 about then-French Presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron. It found that, on Twitter, there was almost no overlap between the audience of the rumour, which was false, and the audience of the correction of that same rumour. So, no overlap between the two groups.

Research shows that corrections tend to be effective when they provide an explanation of the facts and give prior warning about the falsehood to come. This is also mentioned in paragraph 361 of the Select Committee’s report. As such, the Corrections Directions are designed with this in mind. Corrections will take the form of a notice warning people about the falsehood and the notice can set out the facts, or provide a link to the facts.

The powers relating to Corrections are set out in clauses 11, 21 and 23 of the Bill.

There are two main types of Corrections possible, both of which are designed in accordance with the recommendations in paragraph 361 of the Select Committee’s report. The first is set out in clauses 11 and 21. For convenience, I will call this the Targeted Correction. A Targeted Correction must be made accessible to viewers of the falsehood. It acts as a warning tag on the falsehood.

The second type of correction is set out in clause 23 and this correction must be generally amplified on certain platforms, such as news outlets and Internet intermediaries, even if these platforms are not carrying the falsehood. For convenience, I will call this the General Correction.

A General Correction is important to inoculate the public before a falsehood reaches them. Psychological research has shown that corrections used in the same manner as vaccines can be very effective. This is especially appropriate when a campaign to put out falsehoods is on-going, or a broad false narrative based on various lies could be developing and gaining traction. A General Correction can also help when a falsehood is serious and persistent, or is moving underground, into less visible spaces on closed platforms.

Let me now describe the take downs. Besides corrections powers, the Bill also provides for disabling of access to falsehoods, where it is in the public interest to do so. These powers are set out at clauses 12 and 22. There can be a Direction to cease communication of the falsehood to viewers in Singapore. There can be a further order to require that a correction be communicated to those who had previously viewed the falsehood. The Bill requires these Directions to be published in the Government Gazette.

Who may receive these Directions? There are several groups.

Falsehoods, when spread online, may pass through hands and cascade through and move across different platforms. To curb dissemination, it will be most effective to issue Directions to key nodes of dissemination. These will mainly be the internet intermediaries, which almost always play a crucial role in the spread of online falsehoods. Directions could also in some situations be issued to those with large followings. It would often not make sense to issue Directions to every single person who shares a falsehood. Corrections must be published to users in a clear and conspicuous manner.

Two conditions must be satisfied before the Directions can be issued. Minister Shanmugam touched on this. First, a false statement of fact must be communicated in Singapore. Second, it is in the public interest to issue a Direction.

The phrase "false statement of fact" is, as already explained, a legal term drawn from existing law. It covers statements that a reasonable person would consider to be a representation of fact. Opinions, comments, criticisms, are not covered by the Bill.

A statement is false, if it is false or misleading, whether wholly or in part, and whether on its own or in the context in which it appears. This definition addresses the various ways in which reality might be distorted.

Real words and real actions can also be edited and presented in a way that completely transforms their meaning.

In a live interview, Hillary Clinton’s adviser referred to a news article that had blamed Clinton for the death of US diplomats in Afghanistan. A clip of the interview was shown out of context to say that Clinton’s own adviser had blamed Clinton for the deaths. That is wrong.

In Sweden, a real police report listed "vulnerable areas" where police needed to regularly respond to volatile situations. A Swedish newspaper columnist exaggerated the report, and claimed that there were 50 "no go" zones in Sweden – areas filled with illegal immigrants that were too dangerous for even the police to enter. This reportedly remains one of the most persistent myths in Sweden, despite repeated attempts to debunk it.

Similarly, news reports that omit material facts can be a falsehood. This, as experts told the Select Committee, is a common disinformation tactic. For example, in Germany, online news websites spread a girl’s claims that she had been raped by refugees, and that the police were covering it up. They showed real interviews, but omitted the police’s debunk of the claim. This led to thousands of people protesting on the streets, against the alleged cover-up.

Directions can also be issued against false "statements" communicated over the Internet, regardless of the platform. This means that Directions can be used against both open and closed platforms, and also remain flexible enough to deal with falsehoods spread on platforms that are developed in the future.

Platform neutrality was in fact an important design principle, based on the Select Committee’s own findings at paragraph 362. In particular, evidence was given to the Select Committee, of the serious concerns with falsehoods in closed spaces. As falsehoods can be hidden from view, they are ideal platforms for the deliberate spread of falsehoods.

Researchers believe that in closed spaces, people are more susceptible to emotive falsehoods, because these are the spaces inhabited by the familiar and trusted, those they know. The Bill therefore recognises that platforms that are closed are not necessarily private. They can be used not only for personal and private communications, but also to communicate with hundreds or thousands of strangers at a time. Closed platforms – chat groups, social media groups – can serve as a public megaphone as much as open platforms.

As regards closed platforms, even those with end-to-end encryption, the legislation also covers them. We will also find additional ways of dealing with the harm that can materialise from falsehoods spreading on encrypted closed platforms. For example, in such a case, a General Correction order may be used instead.

It is not enough, as Minister mentioned earlier, for there to be a false statement of fact. It must also be in the public interest for the Direction to be issued. The government powers recommended by the Select Committee were intended to prevent the public interest from being harmed. Clause 4 therefore sets out a non-exhaustive list of examples of public interest. This list reflects the dangers of deliberate online falsehoods identified by the Select Committee, based on real events around the world. The Minister had already explained the thinking behind the definition.

Finally, I will now deal with the safeguards.

The Select Committee stated, at recommendation 12, "There should be adequate safeguards in place to ensure due process and the proper exercise of power, and give assurance to the public of the integrity of the decision-making process… Measures… should include judicial oversight where appropriate." At the same time, the Committee also stated that "The measures will need to achieve the objective of breaking virality by being effective in a matter of hours." That is a quote from the Select Committee's report.

The Bill thus incorporates both speed and due process. The Minister will first issue the Direction. An appeal can then be brought to the High Court to set aside the Direction. The Minister has outlined the procedure in the House earlier.

This, in our view, is the best way to be effective, while ensuring that there is always adequate judicial oversight. The Executive weighs the competing interests and acts decisively to protect society, and the Courts will then have the final say over whether the content in question is false.

During the Select Committee process, some representors preferred a Court order to an Executive Direction. But even an expedited court process may not be fast enough to deal with virality; some of the examples which you have seen outlined in the Minister's speech.

Falsehoods can reach many with great speed, and lead to serious consequences just as quickly.

We saw earlier the false video of Muslims celebrating a terrorist attack. That video generated 500,000 views within hours of being posted on one Facebook page.

In Indonesia, a falsehood was spread that a pro-communist rally was being held. There was a real event that actually took place but it was not a pro-communist rally. It took less than 24 hours for the falsehood to mobilise thousands to turn up at the event to disrupt it and to protest.

In France, false posts were put out claiming that leaked campaign documents showed that Macron was engaging in illegal activity. The claims were posted just hours before an election reporting "black-out" – similar to our own "cooling-off" period. The posts were then amplified by bots, trolls and fake accounts. Within four hours, there were 47,000 tweets and the topic had hit Twitter’s "trending" list of most popular topics – within hours.

One final example. In 2017, a falsehood was put out, that the founder of a cryptocurrency called "Ethereum" had died in a car crash. The hoax wiped out $4 billion in market value within five hours.

So, the essence of the remedies is that they have to be able to address and counter the quick, wide and deep spread of falsehoods.

The Bill has benefited from the analysis of the relevant issues by the Select Committee who had many representors come forward, many of whom had experience and some of whom are experts in this field. The provision in this Bill is based closely on the recommendations in the Select Committee Report and the Bill seeks to achieve these outcomes.

6.15 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Sir, as the Select Committee Report on Deliberate Online Falsehoods observes, the phenomenon of fake news is nothing new. Since time immemorial, a battle for hearts and minds has taken place between people who host different views and seek to persuade others of their beliefs and causes; between politicians at the hustings; between companies through elaborate public relations exercises and spin; and between countries – most vividly played out during the Cold War between the US and former Soviet Union, each forwarding the superiority of the capitalist and communist systems respectively.

What we refer to as fake news today, with misinformation and disinformation at its core, has been the domain of propaganda in the days before the Internet. As framed by Claire Wardle in her submission to the Select Committee, at one end of the spectrum, misinformation has been a method of choice of individuals, politicians, companies and countries. Here, misleading content, false context and imposter content dominate. At the other end is aggressive disinformation with falsified or manipulated content which seeks to deceive an audience or a reader. This is usually the domain of sophisticated state and well-endowed non-state actors.

The advent of the Internet and, more recently, social media – where communication has been democratised with both positive and negative repercussions – has brought the ease of propagating fake news centre-stage. The political economy of social media companies and their algorithms which are skewed at extracting profits, in some cases regardless of the consequences, accentuate the problem. Bots and the existence of enterprises that charge for services to manipulate the public discourse, subvert democracy and elections and weaponise information, have become a feature of the online world with many examples highlighted to the Select Committee.

Over the last few years, Western powers have identified Russia’s employment of hybrid warfare, combining both a hostile information campaign employing both misinformation to disinformation before and during the onset of hostilities as the norm for future conflicts. However, it would be a mistake to suggest only Russian involvement. The arc of history has proved that many countries, even those friendly to Singapore, are no less seasoned at subversion and subverting even democratic forces in other countries. And it would be naïve to assume that the employment of misinformation and disinformation is not a permanent aspect of the world we live in today, much of which is lived online.

Clearly, there is a problem at hand. The question is how should Singapore deal with the problem? The Government has proposed the Protection from Falsehoods Online and Manipulation Bill before the House today, what I will henceforth refer to as POFMA. After spending a long time deliberating the nature of the problem, including forming a Select Committee of Parliament, the Government decided not to consult the public on how it preferred to tackle the problem.

To this end, a lot of the public apprehension over the Bill can be located in its choice of the decision-making authority on matters concerning online falsehoods – the Executive. The remedies available under the Bill are virtually identical to those individuals and companies can rely on under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA). In deciding that the Executive will determine what is an actionable falsehood and what is not, there has been significant disquiet even amongst moderate and politically disengaged members of the public about the potentially wide remit of powers extended to Ministers through this Bill.

Sir, the public routinely get involved in political discussions both online and offline on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of policies, the appropriateness of Executive action, the lack of information on matters of public interest, such as the size of our reserves, amongst many others. By their very nature, such discussions are also limited and even exaggerated sometimes because of a lack of disclosure by the Government or the absence of any freedom of information regime to equalise the asymmetry between the information and facts available to the Executive as compared to the general public.

Given our unique laws that govern how the press operates in Singapore, the infamously local phrase, "out-of-bound" or OB markers, and our unique political culture steeped in a history of hauling up members of the public and politicians who utter defamatory statements to Court to be slapped with punitive damages – there is a genuine sense amongst the public that this Bill can be easily abused in the wrong hands.

It does not help that the public do not appear to be clear on what can be said and what cannot be said – for example, how does a false statement of fact interplay with an opinion or a comment? I believe the Minister also recognises this point. In comments to the Straits Times last Saturday about whether the Bill could have the unintended effect of self-censorship, the Minister said, "We need to educate the public that the Bill applies only to people putting out falsehoods and that various Ministries like the Education Ministry is working on public education in this area."

Mr Speaker, the Workers’ Party opposes this Bill. All the Workers’ Party Members will speak against it and our objections centre primarily around a fundamental matter.

First, we do not agree that the Executive should be the initial decision maker on matters surrounding false statements of fact. Secondly, we do not support the uncertainty over the circumstances under which the Executive can move on matters that rest purely on a Minister’s subjective opinion that a false or misleading statement is nonetheless not in the public interest, for which a correction or take-down order, amongst other directions, is necessary. While the Government must legitimately be able to apply to shut down malicious actors, a Court order should legitimise this action that needs to be undertaken.

In fact, the Select Committee Report noted representors raising the prospects of the Executive itself spreading falsehoods. This should give all Singaporeans reason to pause and consider whether the Bill that will be passed with the Executive as the decision maker is truly in the best interests of Singapore. In fact, it is my case that POFMA can easily become a proverbial Damocles sword that would hang over members of the public who do not support the Government’s narrative or toe the Government line.

Sir, it would be useful for the House to revisit Recommendation 12 of the Select Committee Report and the analysis that precedes it. Here, the Committee’s Report deliberated on which entity should become the decision-maker in determining what is a falsehood. In fact, the Select Committee outlined three other alternatives. First was the Courts; the second was the establishment of an independent body or ombudsman that would issue directions; and third, the Report considered the prospects of social media companies themselves acting upon notification of falsehoods by users with a recourse to the Courts.

At paragraph 364 of the Select Committee Report, the Committee acknowledged the views of some representors, including those who were skeptical of the Executive as the decision maker. Ironically, much of the concern that has been expressed in the public realm since the First Reading of the Bill was actually foreseen by the Select Committee Report.

At para 364(b)(iii) it read and I quote, "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." In contrast, the proposal to have the Courts as the decision maker did not illicit any significant apprehensions.

To reinforce this point, it is apparent that the Bill gives remarkable leeway to the Executive to define what a falsehood is, especially since the Government has said that it will not act on all falsehoods. In fact, clause 2(2) legislates that a statement can be deemed by the Government to be false if it is misleading – whether wholly or in part, and whether on its own or in the context in which it appears. In the 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.

In fact, it is fathomable that some statements the Executive may interpret as offending are likely to exist along the misinformation and disinformation spectrum eloquently laid out by Claire Wardle in her submission to the Select Committee. Some statements would exist in the middle of the spectrum where reasonable people would disagree about whether such an offending statement is, indeed, prima facie false or misleading and against the public interest.

In addition to clause 2, clause 10 legislates that any Minister can issue a whole range of directions if that Minister is of the opinion that it would be in the public interest to issue it. Clause 4 lists six broad considerations of what would be in the public interest. Reference is also made to a diminution of public confidence in the Government, again a term that I would argue can turn on how thin-skinned or thick-skinned the Government of the day is – be it today or in the future.

For example, some weeks ago, some critics of what many reasonable people would consider, correctly or incorrectly, to be a pro-Government influencer Nas Daily, were accused of seeking to undermine confidence in public institutions. These critics alleged double standards on the part of the Executive in allowing the applicant, a foreigner, to mark his presence in Singapore because of a different interpretation of what the Executive would deem to be a cause-based event. This led the Singapore Police Force to release a statement which framed the allegations of the critics as, I quote "a malicious attempt to undermine confidence in public institutions."

Sir, if this example, rooted in a different perspective of how the Public Order Act is applied, outlines the contours of what the threshold of undermining public confidence as defined in the Bill is, then the irresistible conclusion must be that the public interest limb detailed in clause 10 can potentially be very easily invoked by the Executive. Such a conclusion would explain why even moderate Singaporeans have raised concerns about the prospect of POFMA having a chilling effect on the public discourse at the hands of a very easily triggered Executive.

Now, if an exceedingly low threshold to trigger Part 3 was not enough, the explanatory statement of the Bill at page 69 clarifies that the six scenarios of what would qualify as the public interest are actually only the tip of the iceberg. I quote the explanatory statement: "Clause 4 gives a non-exhaustive" and let me stress this again "a non-exhaustive definition of the expression ‘in the public interest’, which is part of the condition for making the various directions under this Bill."

So, in fact, what this Bill is really saying is that clause 4 is merely a precursor to another potentially unknown list of definitions of what could be in the public interest.

Mr Speaker, we have had episodes in our history where decisions made by the Executive by virtue of powers legally exercised were questioned with skepticism by members of the public, including even members of the Executive, years after the event. Operation Spectrum or the Marxist conspiracy of 1988 is a good example. It is public knowledge that a senior Cabinet member left the Executive after expressing doubts about the Executive’s exercise of powers under the Internal Security Act. Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam was also quoted by the media as being doubtful about whether the individuals arrested in 1988 were communists.

These are not the opinions of lay members of the public who have access to all the relevant information and individuals involved to make a decision or clarify their understanding of events. It would appear that reasonable people even within the Executive would opine very differently on some matters, but yet, each Minister can invoke the powers under this Bill, even if a fellow Minister may not be in agreement. To avoid such inconsistency, would the Courts not represent a more neutral, transparent, accountable and uncontroversial platform to rule on such matters?

The Government has argued that under the proposed Bill, the Courts are the final arbiter of truth and that an uncomplicated appeals process to the Courts would address the concerns of aggrieved parties. Even so, Sir, the judicial culture in Singapore is highly non-interventionist. The Courts cannot overrule Executive directions lawfully undertaken, pursuant to legislative powers passed by this House.

False statements, which can include misleading ones, nonetheless, require the independence and neutrality of the reasonable man who, in this case, will not be a Judge in the first instance, but a PAP Minister. It is open to question whether a traditionally non-interventionist judiciary will challenge what the Executive deems to be reasonable under the Bill, particularly in the face of broad definitions like "misleading statements" and the "public interest".

Furthermore, an appeal to the High Court for a Part 3 direction under clause 17 does not give leeway to the Court to order what is just and equitable in the circumstances, powers which a genuinely neutral appellant authority must ordinarily host. Instead, POFMA limits the grounds for appeal to the Courts to three circumstances as listed in clause 17. While Judicial Review nonetheless applies, it is a high bar as Judicial Review does not cover the merits of the Minister’s decision, but only its legality.

More fundamentally, the Executive will have to carefully assess and determine what constitutes a statement of fact, something which is not necessarily a straightforward exercise. What is not stated in unequivocal terms by the Government is that the line between satire, opinion or comment, and what the Executive may deem to be a false or misleading statement of fact in the public interpretation, can be highly subjective.

This point was raised in the Court of Appeal judgement in Review Publishing vs Lee Hsien Loong quoting Evans on Defamation, albeit in the context of the defence of fair comment, where it was said and I quote:

"It will often be very difficult to decide whether a given statement expresses a comment or [an] opinion, or by contrast constitutes an allegation of fact. The same words published in one context may be statement[s] of fact, yet in another may be comment[s]. Therefore, whether this element of the defence is established is one of fact, is dependent upon the nature of the imputation conveyed, and the context and circumstances in which it is published. The test in deciding whether the words are fact or comment is an objective one – namely, whether an ordinary, reasonable reader on reading the whole article would understand the words as comment[s] or [as] statements of fact."

However, in acknowledging that deciding between an opinion or a comment and a fact can be a difficult exercise, to say nothing of misleading statements. It would follow that the application of a nonetheless objective test in some cases may likewise not be a straightforward exercise, especially in cases of misleading statements where politically-charged decisions need to be made.

Mr Speaker, it would appear that a key factor in the Government’s selection of the Executive as opposed to the Courts as the decision maker on matters concerning falsehoods and manipulation turned on how quickly a false statement of fact can be corrected, removed and, generally, dealt with speedily. 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.

Firstly, under civil law, quick remedies are available where service and the presence of a respondent in Court can be dispensed with. And to this end, the ex-parte process is not an unusual judicial remedy to deal with certain time-sensitive applications. But one need not reinvent the wheel here. The prospect of interim orders made in favour of the Government in the face of a prima facie falsehood, just like how an individual or company would apply under POHA – can possibly also operate to deal with online falsehoods and manipulation quickly and effectively.

To this end, Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill have close similarities with the remedies for online falsehoods this House passed earlier, under Part 3 of POHA. The new sections 15 and 16 of POHA envisage identical remedies, such as stop publication and correction orders that can be invoked by companies and individuals in Singapore, in addition to orders sought against tech companies upon application to the Harassment Courts.

Mr Speaker, if ordinary Singaporeans and corporates registered here are expected to apply to the Courts to deal with online falsehoods and misleading statements made against them, it would be sensible for the Executive to surrender itself to such a process as well, particularly since the meaning of a falsehood is identical under both POHA and the Bill. The Harassment Courts, dealing with all online falsehood applications, from individuals and companies and the Government, would also result in a consistent application of the law in matters involving online falsehoods and misleading information, resulting in not only greater clarity for all parties but would help in public education on permissible and impermissible forms of expression. In cases of sensitive matters involving national security, in-camera applications can be made by the Executive to the Harassment Courts.

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. Likewise, there can be times where there is a heightened risk of false or misleading postings online. This can happen during elections, for example. In such a scenario, urgent interim orders can be ordered by duty judges available at short notices to quickly deal with false content that threatens to subvert the election process. The difference in the time taken between an Executive direction and an Expedited Order through the judicial process in such cases may not be significant.

Here, I think it is helpful for me to come back to the clarification from Senior Minister of State, Edwin Tong, that in the case of an online falsehood that threatens to go viral in four to five hours, if I heard the Senior Minister of State correctly, the answer was, the Courts can try to deal with that situation. Now, that suggests that there is some room for the Courts to deal with issues speedily. On the other hand, an aggrieved party is also free to apply to the Courts to challenge, vary, suspend or cancel a Court’s decision.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the Workers’ Party is of the view that, as a matter of principle, the Courts should be the decision-makers at the very first instance on matters that pertain to deliberate online falsehoods and manipulation. The fact that the Bill would have to regulate what some reasonable people may well interpret as an expression of free speech under Article 14 of our Constitution, must give us reason to pause and question whether the Courts are better placed to exercise judgement on this point.

The fake news domain is already a very controversial one. Some players are sophisticated. Others will fake innocence when rightly called out. Some misleading statements will be completely political in nature, aimed at lowering the esteem and political prospects of election candidates. And there would conceivably be a whole litany of other scenarios and circumstances to consider. On its part, the Executive will act in some cases of falsehoods and in other cases, it will not. In both scenarios, questions will be asked why the Executive acted as such. Suspicious will be raised and perceptions could be formed. Politicisation would be inevitable. 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.

Mr Speaker: Yes, Senior Minister of State, Edwin Tong.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Yes, Mr Speaker, I have a clarification for Mr Singh. He quoted me earlier in my speech in the POHA debate. Would Mr Singh accept that, while I said that the Courts can try, I went on to say that it would be very difficult and I went on to explain also that in the context of this kind of cases, it would be extremely difficult for a Court to have a proper marshaling of the details and the facts and to decide on the case. I went on to explain all of that.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I can confirm that there was an additional explanation to that initial comment.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: In the terms that I have just set out?

Mr Pritam Singh: Yes. The point I think that needs to be made here with regard to the use of the Courts is that, with an expedited procedure – which the Senior Minister of State also confirmed under POHA, simple claims form – there is room, in my belief, that the Courts can still represent a decision-making authority which can act speedily.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: The point that Mr Singh is trying to put across is that the Courts can do so in a matter of – and, I think, to say, in your words – five to six hours. And I have explained earlier that whilst the Courts can try, it will be very difficult to do so, especially having regard to the fact that they will have to access the merits of the matter. And it is not possible to bring the case within that period of time.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I can accept the Senior Minister of State's position on that. But philosophically, I have a different view as to who the appropriate decision maker is. And it is my belief that we should try and see how the Courts can deal with these falsehoods as quickly as possible.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: That may be Mr Singh's philosophical position. But he was trying to quote my speech to make that point. I do not think that is accurate.

Mr Speaker: Okay, we know the positions taken. Ms Irene Quay.

6.35 pm

Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will state from the outset that I am fully supportive of the legislative intent of this Bill. Fake news is extremely detrimental to society and the severity of its effects cannot be understated. Its negative impacts range from the weakening of national security and public institutions to influencing election outcomes. It also influences the actions of people and affects trust, which, in turn, may lead to violence and loss of lives, warping social and public discourse.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]

The speed with which online falsehoods spread and threaten public interest cannot be addressed effectively using the usual judicial process and require timely executive action. We also cannot rely solely on non-legislative measures, such as self-regulation of online platforms or only focusing on promoting media literacy. Countries that rely on such approaches have not found much success in tackling fake news.

Battling fake news is similar to combating terrorism or fighting a war on drugs. There is no hard and fast answer. However, neither should a blanket policy be applied. Formulating a solution will require vigorous debate and consideration before executing a final calibrated response, much like a surgeon using a scalpel to remove necrotised tissue and not harming healthy cells.

Minister Shanmugan shared that the current existing laws give the Government more powers and are broader. In view of the recent public concerns, should we not then seriously review this, rather than using existing laws as gold standards, because those are big hammers and I believe they are intended for a different purpose?

Currently, I am aware of the following countries that have enacted laws against falsehood. For example, Germany’s Network Enforcement Act or the French anti-fake news law against the manipulation of information. In both instances, a "notice and take down" order is issued against purveyors of fake news.

The Minister has suggested that the Bill put forth offers a more calibrated approach wherein correction orders are possible. This allows for contents with correction notice to be still available for debates and, therefore, more informed decision making and this is, indeed, progressive.

However, one feature to note in our current Bill is that it applies to any person or organisation deemed to be spreading fake news. The aforementioned German and French legislation limits the scope of the law to only tele-media service providers operating Internet platforms. Large tele-media companies have the ability to counterbalance and respond to challenges from the Ministry. It is quite different for individuals or smaller organisations and, hence, the concerns about the impact on general freedom of speech.

I would also like to highlight some concerns regarding the definitions listed in the Bill. The definition of what constitutes "statement of fact, public interest and diminution of public confidence" is very broad. Sir, I suggest that these definitions and terminologies be clarified and explicitly defined for the layman in the principles of the Act in the Bill, as what has been practised for POHA. This will help agencies effectively implement the Act and give the general public a general grasp of what it means. The law cannot be set up just to be understood by the Court and citizens do not understand at all.

The consequences of these overly broad definitions can lead to chilling effects on freedom of speech and expression for our country. Our citizens will need to think twice if a view is a fact or an opinion before expressing it and be able to correctly interpret a view even if information is not readily available.

This issue is compounded by the fact that Singapore does not have a Freedom of Information Act, where citizens can request for data from the Government instead of having to do their own fact-checking and analysis. Can we remedy this by providing information that the public seeks? Would the Minister consider implementing both Bills together as a counterbalancing approach?

Citizens would also need to consider if the content they share or upload is targeting a person or the Government and take precautions to avoid legal consequences with laws, such as the Defamation Act or the Internal Security Act, amongst others. How would these Acts cooperate or conflict with each other, given their overlapping functions and how will they be handled?

Depending on how this law is implemented, there will be heightened concerns with legal ramifications. Apprehension and over-cautiousness will arise from expressing views and uploading content for fear of swift legal reprisal. Citizens will feel inhibited to raise or discuss sensitive topics related to the issues close to their hearts.

There is also concern of the legislation being used against citizens who criticise the Government or have views contrary to the ruling party. Law Minister Shanmugan has clarified in the Straits Times that opinions, criticisms, parody and satire will not be covered. However, these reassurances are not explicitly addressed in the Bill. Proactively including this language will go far to allay these concerns.

Sir, this brings me to the next point to confer Ministers with executive powers to issue correction orders and take-down notices. How do we ensure consistency in approach across Ministries to determine between fact and opinion? How do we see to it that there is no "cherry picking" when it comes to acting against specific information not in favour of the Government? If fake news originates from the Ministry itself, who then decides to have that Ministry take it down? This is the characteristic dilemma of "Who watches the watchers?" In a democratic society, the rule of law should apply to everyone.

I acknowledge Minister Shanmugan's assurance that members of the public have the recourse of appealing the Government's decision via the Court and he has also advised that the process will be relatively "fast and inexpensive".

That said, there is no mention in clause 17 of the Bill for an expeditious recourse. The Bill does not specify the prompt access to recourse in the event of a wrongly executed take-down of supposed fake news. I would, therefore, like to propose a stipulation in the primary legislation for the Government to respond in a timely fashion for information clarification and facilitation of the appeal process.

Although I understand a timeline for appeal will be stated in the subsidiary legislation, I strongly urge the need for an expeditious appeal process to be included in the primary legislation, for example, not more than how many days. This signals a stronger reassurance that prompt access to remedy is readily available and any future Government will have to go back to Parliament to have this amended.

The next point of contention is the lack of an independent oversight council for checks and balances. Though the final arbiter will be the High Court, what about cases that do not appear before the High Court? This is pertinent if actions will be taken against individuals or small groups of people compared to large tele-media companies, whose access to resources provides greater efficiency for recourse in Court.

This oversight council is in line with the Select Committee's Recommendation 10c: "Existing efforts should be reviewed, to consider whether they are adequate to achieve transparency, participation and communication and accountability". Having an independent oversight council to evaluate the effects of fake news will allow directives to be issued in an effective manner and ensure credibility in our governance.

The proposed council is not meant to be at odds with Ministries or the Courts in any way, but to allow for transparency, accountability and synergy. It will clearly add much-needed integrity to our entire political system.

Additionally, the case studies compiled from the council's annual report can be used for public media literacy education, and to establish consistency across ministries in refining future Bills. The Minister has said that the Parliament should be the final check and balance, and in this place, should we then not dissolve all the existing councils. I believe they are set up for a reason. The same rationale for our proposal.

As the first country in the world to enact a Bill with such broad strokes to curb the volatility of fake news, a steep learning curve is to be expected. I believe that we will get it right, striking a balance between curbing fake news and ensuring freedom of speech.

Central to the discussion is the element of trust in pursuit of truth. The majority of Singaporeans support the vision and bravery of this Bill and trust the sitting Government to be honest and just in its implementation. As implicit in the asking of trust from the people, trust should also be paid forward to the people, that we are able to discern fake news as a highly educated populace. The Government will imperil itself if the people perceive that this Bill takes too much liberty with their freedom of speech. I appeal to the House to seriously consider lifting the Party Whip and allow Members to vote according to their conscience for tomorrow's voting. This Bill will have a huge impact on the average Singaporean's freedom of expression and possibly our nation's progress.

Many civil groups harbour genuine concerns over this Bill, as evident by the 170 written representations from individuals and organisations submitted to the SC, and this includes numerous open letters and joint statements published in protest of this Bill from both local and international fronts.

Hence, I think it is our moral obligation to give constructive criticism and proposals to fine-tune this Bill in the best interests of Singapore. If left unrevised, this Bill may have long-term repercussions on freedom of expression and speech, impede the development of an engaged and intellectual public, and erode the trust in our Government. At the end of the day, it is our solemn duty to uphold the mandate by the people and justify their trust through uncompromising policy-making and rigorous debate. Undoubtedly, I certainly have strong reservations for the Bill in its current form.

While I do see positive elements within the Bill, Mr Speaker, this Bill in its current state will need further clarifications before it is ready to be passed. I would like to receive the response to my questions and an honest discussion following.

Debate resumed.

6.49 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Singapore must be bold in making legal moves in light of global trends which have disadvantaged the citizenry, public institutions and Governments via a deluge of falsehoods.

It is easy to wave a banner, whip up emotion and say freedom of speech at all cost. But, much harder to sit down, study the subject and put in place measures to ensure that freedom of speech does flourish without the destructive nature of falsehoods. In essence, the proliferation of online falsehoods undermines freedom of speech. It does not promote it.

Why? Because no discerning Member here could disagree with the following contention – that falsehoods, cyberbullying, trolling and hate speech corrode, rather than promote, public debate.

They damage society's shared public space and reality. If non-reality is allowed to become reality, this harms society as decision-making is prejudiced by falsity.

Falsehoods can unfairly inflame passions, to prevent rational debate.

Falsehoods, especially when amplified by bots and trolls, can intimidate other voices, thereby preventing people from being exposed to a diversity of views. It devalues and de-legitimises the voices of experts and authoritative institutions, thus undermining society's ability to engage in rational discourse based on shared facts.

These can have major ramifications.

The Brexit referendum is a classic example of how falsehoods can penetrate and prejudice even mature democracies. We must learn from that and prevent falsehoods from penetrating the precious crucible of public debate in Singapore.

Indeed, some of the things that had been said in Brexit could have led to Michael Gove's exasperated comment during the height of the Brexit referendum campaigning in which he said, "People in this country have had enough of experts."

Falsehoods can undermine the concept of an objective truth. This may have the negative effect of causing citizens to disengage from public discourse altogether.

In the Czech Republic, a survey showed that 53% of Czechs believed that there was both pro-Russian and anti-Russian propaganda in the Czech public space, and they could not trust anything.

My next point is that legislation cannot be viewed as the antithesis to freedom of speech. To the contrary, legislation is needed to protect freedom of speech.

Why? Because leaving corrections to somehow organically or innately work themselves out is simply ineffective. As a result, truth suffers.

Some examples would help. In October 2014, NationalReport.net, a fake news website, published a story that street artist Banksy had been arrested in London and that the City of London Police had identified Banksy as Paul William Horner, a 36-year-old male born in Liverpool, England. This article received a total of 60,402 shares on Twitter and Facebook. By contrast, it took nine debunking articles by major news outlets, such as The Independent, The Huffington Post, and so on, to reach the same total of 60,000 shares.

The point I am making is that to rely on existing legal remedies would be far too insufficient to deal with the threat at hand. As Dean of SMU Law, Prof Goh Yihan stated, existing laws are limited in terms of speed, scope and adaptability. Simply put, while criminal penalties may apply to punish perpetrators, there are no legislative levers to ensure the timely correction or removal of fake news.

Many people have expressed concern that the Bill will create a chilling effect on public discussions. That is far too broad a criticism.

The corrections regime encourages free speech, by ensuring that people are exposed to more viewpoints and more facts – not less. This is in line with the "marketplace of ideas" theory.

In line with this, we need good public debate. Therefore, I would like to ask: what are the Government's plans to assure well-meaning members of society that they should continue to contribute to meaningful civic discussions?

Mr Pritam Singh questions why the Executive needs to be part of the solution. He says that the Courts should be part of the solution in the first instance. Now, do we need an appropriate decision-making body? Yes. But the type of decision-making model is key.

And for the record, I disagree with Mr Pritam Singh, and I do not think that the Courts are the best placed to hear this in the first instance and decide whether a take-down notice needs to be made or a Correction Direction needs to be made.

Why do I say that the type of decision-making model is key? Because we should be completely aware of the nature of the threat which lies before us. It is dynamic. It evolves swiftly. Falsehoods can spread like fire in hay. They need to be curbed and responded to robustly before they can cause harm. Falsehoods can threaten public safety and create riots.

So, against the nature of the beast, what factors ought to shape the model of the decision-making in the first instance?

The need for speed, a nimble response. That is clear. In these situations, there is no luxury of time to make decisions, going through the Court process, and so on.

In the words of the Select Committee report, recommendation 12, "The measures will need to achieve the objective of breaking virality by being effective in a matter of hours." Hours! And that could be after Court hours. A riot can break after the Courts close.

The decision-maker also needs to be equipped with the information to make the decisions speedily. The decision-maker must also be the right person to weigh in on issues of public interest.

Now, it is a dynamic situation. Let us say that there is a riot. And during the course of the riot, there is a statement that the Police killed the person because of the person's race. Now that needs an immediate intervention by the Executive in the form of a Minister to say, "That is incorrect." He has to decide whether or not it should be taken down, or put up a Correction Direction in the form of what is the truth.

You want to refer to the Courts for that?

Half an hour later into the riot, it says that the Police are opening fire on innocent people. That is false. The Minister again, having to deal with the consequences, must look and say, "What correction must go out?", "Does it need to be taken down?", "Does another piece of information need to go up to put that in perspective, to balance it?"

Refer to the Courts again? Surely not.

Half an hour later, oh, another allegation, out of the blue, "The Police are trying to disarm the CCTVs to get rid of the evidence." That is false. Again the Minister, at the time well after court hours, maybe, will have to make a decision, "What do I do? Take that down? Issue a Correction Direction?" Surely, the Minister, being the Executive, has the play of all the facts. He is in the mix. He has got the officers reporting to him. He has to make decisions very quickly, life and death.

So, this may not only just be about falsehoods per se, but the consequence of what those falsehoods would lead to. Refer to the Courts?

Mr Pritam Singh says philosophically, he has a disagreement; philosophically, it should not be the Courts. But I ask Mr Pritam Singh to look through and decide practically what Singaporeans need in times of crises.

And after all, after all, in the first instance when the Executive makes the decision, that is reviewable. It is reviewable through two mechanisms and not one. The first is a statutory appeal mechanism, and the second is judicial review. So, the Minister's decision is reviewable.

I do not think we should be debating on philosophy and getting tongue-tied over illusions of philosophy.

What happens if there is an endemic that is breaking out in the hospital when every minute matters? Refer to the Courts?

I have great respect for the Courts, and I think as a tier above the Minister, a tier of review – I should rephrase it – a tier of review, they are best placed to decide whether that order was correct or not to begin with, but not to put the Courts in a mix where it is such a dynamic situation.

Ms Irene Quay has also discussed this issue of another body, I think, I read the Order Paper Supplementary, and I think it is called an independent council that looks into the issue of falsehoods. I do not agree that there is a need for that council.

If one looks at the Order Paper Supplementary, one of the functions of the council seems to want to replace the Ministerial decision-making and also determine what is fact. So, it seems to want to do two things: both the Executive role as well as the Judicial role; when actually, there is, every time we sit, an ability to hold the Minister to account in this decision-making process.

So, I think we have to be very clear about the nature of the beast that we are dealing with. I do not think that we should be blind to the fact that there are major issues around the world and that falsehoods can tear a multi-racial and multi-religious society like Singapore, can tear it quite quickly and quite swiftly, and we must guard against that.

Therefore, for principle reasons and for practical reasons, I am in support of the model of allowing the Executive to make the first instance decision, and then have it reviewed by the Courts. And we have heard the Minister state that in subsidiary legislation this is going to be an accelerated process – actually within nine days you could get a hearing if, indeed, the complainant uses his right quickly within the 14 days that he has.

So, for these reasons, I do not think we should be waving a banner of freedom of speech without understanding the consequences of what that entails in dynamic situations where falsehoods can catch like fire in hay. And for those reasons, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

7.01 pm

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to clarify a point made by the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza. I am quoting from the Executive Summary of the report of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods and I want to deal with the point he made about riots and having to wait for a Court order.

I want to suggest to him that sometimes Executive action in itself can be problematic and I am going to quote from this example. Para 24, page 5, "Falsehoods that undermine trust and public institutions can impede constructive policy-making and the ability to respond to crisis and threats effectively. For example, when German police debunked a false claim that immigrants have raped a girl, they were falsely accused of covering up crimes committed by immigrants. This contributed to street protests."

I can understand the Member's view that urgent action is important but Executive action in itself may not always be the solution that will solve the problem. I think it is important to understand that there could be other solutions that may inevitably work, that members of the public could be persuaded by other forms of action like a Court order.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.

Mr Christopher de Souza: Mr Deputy Speaker, I would invite Mr Singh to actually look at the report. Principally, I will quote four sections of the report where it states specifically that swift action is key. Swift action is key. The importance of stemming the spread of online falsehoods – para 357(a). "Specific objectives; – Provide swift access to the facts" – para 361 of the report. And in page 103 of the report, Part c: "neutralise false amplifiers,...swiftly."

I think this brings to bear why in recommendation No 12 at page 133, we want to be able to discredit falsehoods swiftly.

In all of these instances, I would humbly suggest to the House that our Executive, our ministers, the office-bearers who are fed with information on what is happening on the ground can make the best decisions within the limited time that they have. And if there is any delay, goodness knows what the consequences could be and that would harm Singaporeans.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Irene Quay, you want to make your clarification?

Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching: Yes, I would like to make a correction that when I meant "independent council", I am not referring to a council that will make Executive decision. So, what we are proposing is a post review council for learning purposes.

Mr Christopher de Souza: I thank Ms Quay for that. I studied the Order Paper Supplement and, actually, under the functions of the council under (h) at page 7, it says "to perform such functions as the Minister may, by order published...assign, provided such functions do not compromise the independence of the Panel."

It would seem to me that this council suggested through this suggested amendment envisions practising some of the Ministerial functions. And in addition to that, at (f) at page 7, under functions of the Council, it says "to liaise with scientific, specialist, and technical experts to advise the Government on examining contested facts of a specialist nature." And it seems that the Council that this amendment envisions is taking on the adjudication role of what is fact and what is not.

So, I do think that we should take it seriously, the amendment, look at it for what it is and, in my considered view, the Executive plus an oversight of the Judiciary is the best way forward.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Irene Quay.

Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching: We are not suggesting that the oversight committee take over this Executive decision so we still maintain for Ministers to make the Executive decision. So, our stand of independent oversight Council is for review of the past cases to fine-tune future Bills. That is all.

Mr Christopher de Souza: Indeed, I thank Ms Quay for that clarification. Hitherto, I do not think the wording in the Order Paper Supplement suggested that explanation but if it is a clarification then it does put some perspective.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister for Law just now said that the powers of the Government under this Bill is narrower than the existing legislation. The fact is, however, after this Bill is passed, the Government will continue to have the same powers as before; powers given to the Government under other legislation will not be rescinded by this Bill. The important thing is that in the other legislation, the powers of the Government is directed at websites or companies, but this Bill is targeted at remarks made by individuals on the social media.

The Minister also said that the Bill is to deal with online falsehoods with calibrated legislation. Mr Deputy Speaker, the crux of the issue is that this piece of calibrated legislation is directed at remarks made by individuals on the social media. This is most worrying.

The WP opposes the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill. We agree that it is necessary to legislate to deal with those who use online falsehoods to destabilize our current political system and multi-racial society, to prevent foreigners from influencing election results through the internet, and to order tech companies to take down remarks which could cause social divide. However, the Bill presented to the Parliament is very disappointing and surprising.

In our view, the purpose of the Government in introducing this bill is not simply to deal with the challenges mentioned above. The underlying motive is in fact to deter critics on the social media.

As soon as the Bill was presented to the Parliament, the main stream media has started reporting and one of their key points is the harsh penalties prescribed in the Bill. In the future, the Government can selectively punish a few offenders to achieve a chilling effect, this is so called "to scare the monkey by slaughtering the chicken." People will try to protect themselves by self-censorship. The true aim of the Government, is to protect the ruling party and achieve political monopoly through this Bill.

Today, there are various types of online falsehoods, and they indeed have brought challenges to the political system and social management. No doubt we need strategies to deal with them. But do not forget, the internet and social media have also empowered common citizens to discuss politics and hold the Government accountable. This is a positive development brought about by technology. Nowadays, people do not just discuss politics at coffee shops or only start to open up after a few drinks. When people have doubts about the Government or certain political figures, the talk is not limited to quiet whispering only. This shows that Singaporeans have stepped out the shadow of the white terror of the ISA which allows the Minister to detain people for a long period of time without a trial. This is a great step towards openness and democracy for Singapore.

In fact, modern technology and the prevalence of internet has provided opportunities for modern democracy to improve and develop. Online opinions have provided the Government with a feedback and response platform which is effective, timely, and can change flexibly as scenarios change. The Government can communicate with the people directly, know their needs and issues they face, hence make better policies to improve people’s lives. Public opinions are no longer reflected only during elections. A Government that can make good use of this platform will be able to accurately introduce policies that are pro-people, therefore making sure it stays in power. At the same time, people can also express views on Government policies through the internet, or become an organized force through the internet to exert pressure on the Government.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a headache faced by a modern Government. If a common citizen can express his opinions online and criticize Government policies or a certain politician, the whole world can see. Even if the mainstream media controlled by the Government is ambiguous or try to trivialize the matter, it is becoming more difficult to do so.

The Government believes that any rational person will agree that we need to legislate to deal with online falsehoods, and takes this opportunity to empower the Minister to judge public comments, and have absolute power to take actions. This is a Bill with a hidden agenda.

The Workers' Party opposes this Bill. First, this Bill allows the Minister to have absolute power to decide what are falsehoods and what punishment to mete out. It is like during a match, the Minister is both player and referee.

Prime Minister Lee pointed out recently that the prevalence of technology and social media has made it very easy for hate speech and falsehoods to spread. People with malicious intent can easily manipulate opinions, and even influence elections. This is seemingly convincing, but how can we be sure that the Ministers from the ruling party will not manipulate opinions and spread falsehoods in order to win elections? Although the Bill stipulates that during an election, the Minister must appoint a Government official to perform the duties on behalf of the Minister to avoid conflicts of interests, who can ensure that this Government official will not do things that could harm public interests to benefit himself and the Minister?

Although this Bill allows people to appeal to the court against the Minister’s actions, for a common citizen, after being dealt with by the Minister then having to go to the court to complain, it is both time consuming and energy sapping. No common person can have the kind of resources like the Government which has the whole AGC behind it. To engage in a legal tussle with the Government, it is easier said than done.

In a word, the WP cannot accept that the Bill empowers the Minister to judge and decide how to mete out punishment, when it is a basic right concerning people’s freedom to comment on politics. The WP believes that the Minister should complain to the court first and prove to the judges that the news published online is false and there is ill intent behind the news. It should be up to the judges to decide. This is the acceptable procedure.

Secondly, the definition of falsehoods covers too wide an area, and is ambiguous. For example, Clause 2 stipulates that the Government has power to deal with misleading remarks, but what is the dividing line between misleading and false statement? In fact, the Government has no interest in studying this further; it just wants the people to hand the power to it and decisions are up to the Government to make.

After the Bill was tabled in Parliament, the Government has faced many opposing voices. To win support, the Government has to clarify on what constitutes falsehoods. The Government has been trying to convince people that they are only targeting fake news, not personal opinions. However, in this regard, I have no faith in the Government. After the implementation of the Bill, will the Government show its true colours? For example, if I say the Pioneer and Merdeka Generation Packages are to buy votes, is this considered information or opinion?

I think, because of the wide definition of falsehoods in the Bill, the Minister can make a decision on whether it is information or opinion according to need. Similarly, the same words coming from different people may be interpreted differently by the Minister.

For example, "the older generation can’t accept a non-Chinese PM", if these words come from the minister himself or his supporter, the minister may say that this is a personal opinion. However, if these words come from the minister’s political opponent on the social media, the minister may say that spreading such falsehoods will create racial conflicts even riots, endangering national security. He can demand this person to publish what is acceptable to the Government, otherwise he will be punished. This is a modern version of "literary inquisition".

The Government had previously misinterpreted laws to deal with those it disliked. For example, when Protection from Harassment Bill was passed in Parliament, the purpose was to protect individuals. But a few years ago, the Government tried to use this Act to include Government agencies as objects to be protected. Although the High Court ruled that the Government had no right to cite this Act, because the Government is not an individual. The case dragged on for a few years which would be a huge burden for any individual who has limited resources.

I think that the correct way for a society to develop immunity to falsehoods, is to enhance civic education and to instil in citizens a habit of finding facts from online news, so that they will not believe in online news easily, nor react to 'big news' or internet instigations.

The internet is an open platform, netizens can rebut irrational, extreme and unfair online remarks. Relevant Government agencies and ministers can also come out to clarify and state the stance. By doing so, the true nature of online rumours, fake news and misleading remarks will be known, netizens can also be educated and enhance their ability to judge.

In conclusion, even though the WP realizes that we need to have new strategies to deal with the challenges brought about by the issue of authenticity in the process of information dissemination, the Government, on the other hand, is trying to use this opportunity to make the minister the sole judge on the issue, without a court trial, to deal with the space for speech and commentary created by the modern technology. We therefore oppose this Bill.

Although the Government says that the court will be the final judge, this may be so theoretically. In the situation where possession of resources is totally unequal, to be engaged in a legal tussle with the Government is like hitting stone with an egg. To introduce such a Bill is not what a Government which claims to defend democracy and public interests should do. It is more like the actions of a dictatorial Government that will resort to any means to hold onto absolute power.

7.20 pm

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister has large ambitions for this Bill, and I wonder if the Bill as it stands can live up to them. My suspicion is, perhaps not. Given our society today, I wonder if we ask too much of the law and too little of ourselves?

First, let me say that I agree with the premise of the Bill – that the impediments to full, transparent discourse is less a matter of lack of information than one of too much, too complex and partly false information. The word "partly" is important because online falsehoods are seldom completely false. Most misleading messages hold a grain of truth, but their sum total is a lie. The Minister has given a few examples, and I will give one more later on.

Second, I also agree with the instrumental value of the Bill – namely to reduce the instances of such falsehoods and to empower the government to correct and as last resort, remove such falsehoods that are deemed to cause public harm. The threshold for the application of this law is necessarily very high – as it should be.

We should not allow this law to stymie public discourse, robust debate and the growth and flourishing of contested views.

The hon Member Mr Pritam Singh expressed deep concerns about how the Bill supposedly confers the Executive excessively broad and unprecedented power. But I think Mr Singh does not address Minister Shanmugam's explanation that the Bill in fact narrows power under existing laws which themselves have been around for more than 30 years. Mr Singh also raised the example of Nas Daily. But Minister Shanmugam had also addressed the example in his speech and explained when and why statements in respect of that would be covered.

Last year, I had spoken in Parliament about this arguing that any proposed legislation on Deliberate Online Falsehoods stands against two common misconceptions about freedom in discourses – that truth will emerge naturally from a contestation of ideas. Political scientists know that ideas are a function of power as well as merit. This is the very concern of academics and advocates. I say it straight – that the hegemony of the People’s Action Party will lead to their ideas travelling further and hitting harder than others.

The Minister for Education had last week said that this Bill does none of that. It is less a matter of giving power to some ideas, than correcting falsehoods. In the majority of cases, merely putting out the right facts against the wrong ones, rather than taking down the latter altogether. The assumptions are less to do with political power than the behavioural bias embedded in all of us.

I had previously spoken about two false assumptions that unfettered freedoms rely on: first, that people have infinite time and capacity to make decisions; and second, that people change their minds when presented with new facts.

Given that these two assumptions are largely false, the state has a public duty to reduce falsehoods. As a member of the Select committee, we examined and noted the extent and serious consequences that Deliberate Online Falsehoods can cause. This duty to reduce Deliberate Online Falsehoods is one whose specific form is being debated in democratic countries across the world. Singapore needs to move fast.

Last year, when I had spoken on the motion on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, I had said that current provisions were manifestly inadequate and requires further action on two fronts: the private sector and society itself. Social media platforms must recognise the primacy of public interest over private profit. In fact, Minister had stressed this in his speech earlier. I had also argued for the moral duty of members of the public to think before sharing falsehoods. At the time, I had in mind political information and content of the sort that related to political events in Britain, and the elections of other countries that Minister had also spoken about.

In light of events in recent weeks, I would say this moral duty of the public requires a lot more attention. Given this limited application of the law, the ambition to protect trust in our institutions and democratic discourse, is mere conceit if we conceive of it as being the preserve of the law alone. There are too many falsehoods, promoted and fanned by too many parties, with harm caused by a million paper cuts.

The law does not touch these, and I repeat, rightly so. I do not ask for the law to be widened – far from it – what I would ask of all of us in this House is to record our resolve to respond to the rise of such falsehoods through extra-legal means. Chief among these must be the development of online norms against guerrilla justice and vigilantes.

The recent case of Ms Monica Baey in NUS is instructive. The truth is that Nicholas Lim committed a terrible act and Monica Baey suffered greatly. Monica Baey deserves to feel safe in her own hall of residence. Nicholas Lim deserves to be punished for what he did. But he certainly does not deserve the online hate, flames and persecution. This is something Ms Baey herself has disavowed. But the punishment of Nicholas Lim cannot depend on the grace and magnanimity of Monica Baey.

Justice is not a lynch mob to be swayed and directed like a throw flame of moral panic. It answers neither to Facebook nor Instagram posts, no matter who writes them, nor to the distress or trauma of victims alone.

But in today’s context, lynch mobs are easily and cheaply formed. Minister shared how much the market rates are for some of them. Digital technology such as social media platforms and digital advertising tools can be a force for good. Yet, increasingly, we have seen how they have been abused by bad actors to weaken society, to affect democratic processes and to inflict harm. They provide convenient, accessible and cheap platforms for bad actors to exploit.

On Facebook, we saw a live stream of Christchurch shootings, which reached a wide audience through re-sharing. This is the glamorising of terrorism, which many may participate in inadvertently.

Twitter has allowed hate speech to proliferate on its platform. For example, in the name of freedom of expression, it has refused to ban Alex Jones’ Infowar account even after there was clear evidence of him spreading hate speech and disinformation.

Closer to home, In Indonesia, after four Chinese nationals were arrested for allegedly planting imported chili seeds contaminated with "bacteria". These were false claims were spread on Twitter, with the contagion spreading to Indonesian newspapers which accused China of using a "biological weapon" against Indonesia. This made its way back to social media, with many posts carrying anti-Chinese sentiments.

On Google, in October 2017, during the Las Vegas shooting, divisive hoaxes continue to appear in top search results – anti-Semitic material topped search results. In the meantime, there were Youtube sites which were monetising these harmful content. Today, we continue to see the use of bots and avatar accounts to spread falsehoods and amplify viewpoints.

So, what is our response? This piece of legislation must take its bearing from the Select Committee’s recommendation. As a member of the Committee, I must say that we decided to give a large role to ignorance and agnosticism. Sometimes, we do not know; sometimes, we cannot decide what is false or true.

This piece of legislation is a scalpel, not a sledgehammer as it provides a calibrated tool-kit to address the problem of disinformation. In terms of the tools to address falsehoods: most of the time, we will use Corrections Directions will be used sparingly. Take-downs will only be for serious cases.

These "Correction Directions" are a unique remedy, whose purpose is not to censor content, but to provide a broader range of facts for the public to consider. In line with our earlier laws on information, we do not stop the flow of information, but we do want to stop bad actors from profiting from falsehoods. The last resort, criminal sanctions; these will only apply to individuals who deliberately spread falsehoods which harm the public interest. Upstream measures include Code of Practices. The current form of legislation sticks closely to many of the Select Committee’s recommendations.

The Select Committee comprised Members of Parliament from both sides of the House. The Select Committee’s recommendations were detailed, and signed off collectively. As expected, some opponents now criticise the legislation, but they have little to offer in response, except mere generalities.

They did not contest the Select Committee’s findings that online falsehoods are a serious problem, that they cause serious consequences in a very, very short time, that "drip feed" falsehoods have enduring harm. But when we offer a practical and calibrated solution, when this is proposed, they cry foul.

If we all agree that this is a serious problem, what are the solutions? Since the Select Committee’s recommendations, the Government has moved on many of the recommendations: first on the non-legislative front, and now on the legislation.

I would like to ask the Minister to also provide a detailed update on the implementation of the Select Committee’s recommendations. What more can the public expect in the near-term, for example, can there be an establishment of a fact-checking entity, something which have been done in some countries?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I had started my speech by asking if we ask too much of the law, and too little of ourselves. Even if POFMA had been in operation today, given the way the law has been drafted, there would have been very few take-down orders. Instead, there will be additional facts for people to consider – perhaps to accept if they are convinced, perhaps to reject if they are not.

Online contestation is a vaccine. We cannot grow strong unless we are first made weak. We cannot develop unless we have freedoms, including the freedom to make mistakes and identify falsehoods for ourselves.

In the process, we must develop an online culture of what it means to be a Singaporean, to be fair-minded, seeking recompense and justice; to be compassionate; dispensing mercy and second chances. As a young nation, we must grow into the best version of ourselves as Singaporeans, not just in our real and daily lives, but in our online norms and dialogues. We should not ask this of the law only. We should ask this of ourselves. Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun Xueling.

7.33 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs and National Development (Ms Sun Xueling): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Deputy Speaker, the Minister and a few members of this house has talked about the problem of online falsehoods.

The extent of destruction that online falsehoods can cause is evident. It is like a new form of 'virus' that can spread widely within a very short period of time. Societies afflicted by online falsehoods are like people who have been infected by viruses. If we cannot find a new treatment for these new viruses, we will continue to be plagued by them.

If we are sick, we should see a doctor. We cannot delay treatment just because we are afraid of seeing a doctor. This new Bill, is therefore a new treatment to deal with this new 'virus'.

Singapore is not the only country that is battling against this virus. Last year, together with Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong and Mr Pritam Singh, leader of the Workers' Party, I attended the Committee of Hearing on International Fake News and Falsehoods organised by the British Parliament. We discussed the issue of falsehood with representatives from eight countries. Many other countries such as France and Germany are also drafting new laws to counter fake news online and setting up regulatory regimes specifically for digital platforms.

Therefore, our measures are not unusual. Countering online falsehoods is also a common practice in other countries. Singapore and other countries are working together to fight against this new virus in order to safeguard the well-being of our nation.

Well then, is this proposed new treatment a good treatment? I think we need to look into two aspects when we are considering the merits of this treatment. First of all, is this treatment better than the existing treatment? Secondly, is this new treatment targeting the root of the problem? Will there be any side effects?

Let us now look into these two aspects.

First of all, is the new bill better than our existing legislation?

Earlier, Mr Low Thia Khiang said he does not believe that the new bill has given less authority to the Minister. But the Minister had explained earlier that existing legislation in Singapore, such as the Broadcasting Act, was implemented 23 years ago. Back then, there was no social media or large-scale internet platforms. Therefore, we did not have legislation that target online falsehoods specifically, which is a new kind of "virus", and this new Bill does the job of plugging the gap. Under existing legislation, blocking out content is the primary measure taken. However, the Minister has explained that under the new Bill, correction orders would be the main tool used to clarify false information. Internet platforms that have been issued correction orders will only need to put up corrections alongside the falsehood to avoid punishment.

Now, this is an innovative approach. In many other countries, the primary measure taken is to request the internet company to take down the falsehood entirely. Comparatively, the new Bill proposed by Singapore is more tolerant and more in line with the needs of the new environment.

Secondly, Mr Low Thia Khiang also believe that this new Bill has greater legal powers than existing legislation, as it is not only targeted at companies, but also individuals. Here, I think there is a need to clarify that this new Bill is not targeted at ordinary folks but purveyors of deliberate online falsehoods that is detrimental to public interest.

Furthermore, the new Bill is targeted at false statement of facts, while personal opinion is not considered falsehood. Therefore, we will not face criminal punishment if we express our opinions in our daily lives, or if we accidentally share online fake news.

Here, I would like to share my personal experience. I have quite a few elderly relatives who are very health conscious and often share information with each other, especially with regards to food safety. Some time ago, they received information from friends, claiming that consumption of broccoli together with prawns will trigger a chemical reaction in our bodies that will cause originally harmless substances to turn arsenic. By consuming prawns with broccoli, one may start to bleed and eventually die.

After listening to this horrific piece of information, I assured them that fried broccoli with prawns is a common dish and there is no need to worry. Then they started to worry if they would face criminal punishment under the new Bill, if they had unwittingly shared the information with family and friends. I told them firmly that the new Bill is not targeted at kind-hearted common folk who are unaware that certain information is false. Instead, it is meant to deal with purveyors of falsehoods, people who deliberately spread falsehoods with malicious intent.

Then, will this new Bill affect freedom of speech? This is also what Mr Low Thia Khiang is concerned about. I believe that by requesting for the correct information to be put up alongside the false information, we are turning on a spotlight for everyone, so that they can refer to more information and judge for themselves.

Therefore, the new Bill will not affect freedom of speech. Instead, there will be more information channels and greater freedom to obtain information.

A further question is, will this new Bill lead to the abuse of ministerial powers?

I have a personal view, which I believe can help allay some of the concerns raised by Mr Low Thia Khiang. I think that the Chinese character "众" (zhong) used in "公众利益" (gong zhong li yi), the Chinese phrase that refers to public interest, is made up of three "人" (ren), the Chinese character that refers to people.

Just like the three "人" or "people" that make up the character "众" (zhong) or "public", the Minister will be monitored on three fronts under this new Bill. Firstly, he will be monitored by the public. Individuals or organizations that have been issued the correction order can lodge an appeal at the courts and challenge the Minister’s decision. Secondly, he is monitored by the court because the court is the final adjudicator. Thirdly, he is monitored by the Parliament as members can also question the Minister's decision. If the Minister requests that certain information be taken down, this directive will also be published. Therefore, the new bill monitors the Minister on three fronts to ensure that he does not abuse his power and the process is indeed in public interest.

Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong also explained that although the courts can try to expedite the trial for cases concerning falsehoods, this is plagued with challenges as a lot of details are involved, and if we do not stop the spread of falsehood quickly, it can do a lot of harm.

Earlier, the Minister also mentioned that this Bill merely provides a framework. Within this framework, we must all do our part to combat falsehoods. Therefore, I would like to come back to the Chinese character "众" (zhong) or "public", which is made up of three Chinese characters "人" (ren), or "people". It is symbolic of the need for society to work together to tackle this problem. Only then, can we succeed.

Dealing with falsehoods is not only the Minister's responsibility, but also the court's responsibility, the parliament's responsibility, and every Singaporean's responsibility. The new Bill encourages everyone to co-operate in countering the problem of fake news. At the same time, mechanisms are put in place to ensure that there are checks and balances, so as to avoid side effects.

Mr Low Thia Khiang also mentioned earlier that he does not feel confident about delegating a senior government official to take over the decision-making role of the Minister during elections. I felt upset to hear this and I am sure any civil servant who hears this would be upset too. As I explained earlier, dealing with falsehoods requires everyone to work together, not just the Minister. This new Bill merely provides a framework.

Mr Low Thia Khiang also mentioned a few examples earlier. He was worried that there is a hidden agenda behind this framework by using very broad definitions, it will allow the Government and ministers to decide for themselves what is public interest and falsehoods to satisfy their personal motives.

I would like to clarify this. The Bill does not specify what constitute public interest as we cannot possibly imagine every instance that will harm public interest. The Minister has also explained earlier that these circumstances have not surfaced yet. However, he did give a few examples to illustrate the difference between falsehoods and personal opinion.

By giving examples, the broad principles and basis are laid out to provide some kind of guideline that is applicable for different situations.

I think, to say in parliament that the Pioneer Package or the Merdeka Package is a vote-buying tactic by the Minister, is being suspicious of others’ good intentions without having proper justifications. So, I do not think that we should engage in such extreme behaviour in a solemn setting like this. We should discuss this very meaningful Bill positively.

In conclusion, this new Bill can solve what existing legislations cannot resolve. It is also more tolerant, more refined and more targeted. Singapore is not the only country that is combating online falsehoods. Other countries are also drafting new laws to suppress online falsehoods. Various checks and balances have been put in place within this new Bill to ensure that the Government’s executive powers remain in check.

Today, our focus is on online falsehood, which should not be confused with conversations by common folk in coffee shops. Online falsehood is a new form of 'virus' that requires new, more targeted and more advanced innovative treatment. Let’s all work together to counter the harm inflicted on our society by online falsehoods. Thank you.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Senior Parliamentary Secretary Sun talked about a very interesting Chinese character "众" (zhong). Of course, there is nothing wrong in saying that there are three "人" (ren) or "people" in the character "众" (zhong), but ultimately, there is a "人" (ren) on top in this character.

Under this Bill, even though in theory, you can go to the Court and question the Minister’s interpretation of the text, and say that it is wrong to issue the correction or take down order, but before that, the Minister would have arrived at his own conclusion and made a decision.

Besides, public interest is up to the individual’s interpretation as it is not clearly stipulated in the Bill. Therefore, it is all up to the Minister to decide what is in public interest, what is falsehood, and what he will do about it. This means he wields all the powers, and I do not wish to see Singapore's Ministers having so much power. The problem with this, is that they may make the wrong decision. Even though you can go to court and there is a procedure, things are not so simple.

So, we believe that the correct way, is for the Minister to lodge a complaint in court, and let the judge decide. This is the convincing way. However, under this Bill, for the three characters that represent "people" in the character "众" (zhong), the one on top, which is the Minister, makes the decision, while the other two "people" just sits below him. You can decide whether this is in public interest or not based on the above interpretation of the character "众" (zhong).

Ms Sun Xueling: (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I thank the Member for his clarification. I do not agree with what the Member has said. When I spoke about the Chinese character "众" (zhong) or "public", I meant to talk about everyone working together, but he insisted on interpreting the character "众" (zhong) as being made up of a big character "人" (ren) or "person" on top. I have stated clearly that the court is the ultimate adjudicator for what is considered falsehood. Furthermore, when the Minister executes his power under this law, he must satisfy two conditions. First, there must be falsehood. Second, he must prove that public interest is affected. If one really insists on interpreting the character "众" (zhong) as being made up of a "person" on top, with two "people" below, then I think the one on top should represent the court.

I was the one who used the Chinese character "众" (zhong) for illustration. Since I used this as an example and have clearly stated that the court is the ultimate adjudicator, I can say that in the character "众" (zhong), the "人" (ren) on top represents the court.

Mr Low also say that "public interest" was not adequately explained in the new Bill, and he is uncomfortable with that. However, I would like to clarify that "public interest" is already covered in existing legislation, and many examples have also been included in the new Bill, so the principles and possible scenarios have been laid out. I mentioned in my speech, that when you explain these principles clearly using examples, it serves as a more meaningful guidance. Thank you.

Resumption of Debate on Question [7 May 2019], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." – [Minister for Law].

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker: Are there any clarifications from yesterday evening that anyone would like to pose? Okay. Ms Rahayu Mahzam.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Last year, I had the privilege to sit on the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods together with several other Members of this House, including Mr Pritam Singh and Ms Chia Yong Yong. It was a rigorous process. The Committee was appointed in January 2018 and subsequently called for members of the public to submit their thoughts on the causes and consequences of deliberate online falsehoods and suggest counter-measures against the threat. We received 170 submissions from people from all walks of life, including academics, community leaders, think tanks, students and other individuals. We went through all the submissions and invited 79 of those who made submissions to elaborate on their submission at a public hearing. Over the course of eight days, we heard oral representations from 65 individuals and representatives of organisations. The Committee deliberated on the matter over a period of almost six months and eventually produced a 176-page report, not inclusive of the annexes, with 22 recommendations.

One of the key thrust of the recommendations was to disrupt online falsehoods through new legislation which would empower the Government to take the necessary action. The Committee had observed that falsehoods can appear in a broad spectrum of circumstances, from deliberately fabricated content to satire and parodies. They can also have varying degrees of impact, causing minor confusion to threatening national security and dividing societies. The Committee emphasised that Government intervention should be calibrated in a manner that takes these factors into consideration.

I am heartened that the Bill today has taken into account one of the Select Committee's recommendations on the creation of new legislation. In my view, the Bill has captured the essence of the Committee's recommendation and has done well in calibrating the responses to deliberate online falsehoods. I note that some may not share my view. In the wake of the First Reading of the Bill, I received feedback, heard and read about concerns of some people of the impact the new legislation may have to our ideals of freedom of speech and how some felt that this Bill may have been rushed through without proper consultation.

I disagree with these views but appreciate that my perspective was very much shaped by my experience and what I had learnt whilst I was on the Select Committee. It would be impossible to set out my whole experience in this speech but I would like to touch on several learning points that left a deep impact on me.

Firstly, Singapore is highly vulnerable to online falsehoods. Falsehoods has a great potential to deepen fault lines and polarise society. Singapore is one of the most diverse countries in the world. We are small, multi-racial, multi-religious, with great digital connectedness. Racial and religious tensions may be inflamed quickly. A Nielsen survey indicated that more Singaporeans access their news over the Internet and social media, compared to hardcopy newspapers. A Business Times report stated that 70% of Singaporeans are active social media users on mobile devices, double the global average of 34%. The same report found that over three-quarters of Singaporeans used social media.

In addition, several security experts who presented at the Select Committee pointed out that foreign disinformation can be expected to occur in Singapore. In fact, in private hearings, the Committee received evidence that State-sponsored disinformation operations have been carried out against Singapore. Targeting friction points in Singapore society, and weakening Singapore’s will to defend itself, is a more attractive strategy than conventional military warfare. Further, the tools for disinformation campaigns are readily available in our region.

Secondly, there are real risks of "slow drip" falsehoods causing long-term damage to society and are difficult to displace if not dealt with quickly. Several experts gave evidence on this issue, including Dr Ben Nimmo of the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab and Dr Elmie Nekmat, Asst Prof of Communications and New Media from National University of Singapore. Falsehoods may play on existing "slow burn" issues, such as simmering communal tensions, to create more serious crises in the long run. In particular, Dr Mathew Mathews from the Institute of Policy Studies, warned of “low-level” misinformation about particular ethnic, religious or immigrant groups on various matters such as their loyalty to Singapore, potential to commit anti-social acts and others. And these could lead to friction within the community. Singapore society has seen such falsehoods. One notorious example is an article by The Real Singapore, which falsely reported that a complaint by a Filipino family resulted in commotion between Hindu participants and the Police during a Thaipusam procession in 2015.

Viral, drip-feed falsehoods may play on slow-burn issues. Such lies may not trigger immediate violence, but they can poison debate, and irreversibly damage the fabric of our society – like race relations, confidence in public institutions. All these can culminate in violence in the long run. They should not be considered "less dangerous", and Singapore cannot afford to be complacent about them. The breakdown of society due to a spread of what may seem like innocuous falsehoods, can and will happen if we do not take action to correct and curb them.

Thirdly, falsehoods are very, very difficult to combat. Therefore, there is a need to act swiftly and decisively in certain situations. The evidence before the Select Committee pointed to three difficulties: (a) human cognitive tendencies, (b) weakness of truth compared with falsehoods, and (c) the further and faster reach of falsehoods than the truth. Basically, in short, we believe what we want to believe, the truth is not as salacious as falsehood, so it is harder to believe the truth and falsehoods can go viral much faster that the correction.

A significant number of representors, both experts and laypersons, called for measures to swiftly stem the spread of online falsehoods. They were of the view that such measures are vital because of the speed at which online falsehoods can cause irreparable damage. Some of them explained why longer-term or indirect measures such as fact-checking and public education were not enough to deal with online falsehoods. The Select Committee agreed.

In light of the things that I have learnt, I am therefore pleased with the calibrated approach taken in the Bill. The Government needs to be empowered to quickly react to falsehoods if there is an adverse impact to the public. In certain circumstances, there cannot be any delay and the truth has to be brought to light immediately. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore is highly vulnerable to the threat of online falsehoods that can potentially destroy inter-racial and inter-religious relations. The adverse impact of falsehoods which have become widespread is hard to repair. Therefore, under certain circumstances, the Government has to be given the power to curb the spread of such falsehoods.

Many have voiced their concerns about how this legislation can affect people's freedom of speech. Let us take a step back and think about what we want for our society. We want a society that knows how to think and is able to conduct healthy discussions. This can only take place when there is a space that is free from slander and falsehoods because otherwise any debate will not be beneficial.

Some also questioned the power granted to the Government in this Bill which is seen as too broad. This is actually untrue. The Government must ensure that the information is false and affects public interest. Any view and opinion that are based on true facts will not be categorised as falsehoods. The Government can issue a direction for a correction alongside the falsehood or, in more extreme situations, for the falsehood to be taken down. However, if a person disagrees with the direction, he can go to Court to obtain a determination. The Government does not have the final say in determining whether the matter is true or false. In my opinion, there is a calibration in this Bill's approach and I think this is a good approach.

(In English): I am happy to note that corrections will be the primary response and there is no punishment for the majority of cases if there is no malicious conduct. I am satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards in the form of a recourse to the Court, in the event there is an objection to the allegation of falsehood. On this note though, I appreciate the lay persons’ concerns about the cost and complexities involved in seeking recourse from the High Court. I have intended to seek clarification on this but I note that in his opening speech the Minister for Law had explained the simplified processes. I believe this should address the peoples' concerns.

At the end of the day, it is clear from the various explanations, that the Ministry has given through news articles and videos, that the Bill does not affect ordinary Singaporeans. Only those who act deliberately will face criminal consequences. Such persons must not only know that the statement they are sending is wrong; they must also know that such statement will undermine public interest. So, it is not a criminal offence to forward or share messages without checking for accuracy first – although I think you should. I feel that ordinary Singaporeans should be happy to be warned about falsehoods and to receive corrections. This will help to build a community of more discerning Internet users. It may be useful to continue to guide and educate the public about this new legislation. Perhaps the Minister can consider efforts to educate Singaporeans on what type of falsehoods will be covered under the Bill so that they can better identify and avoid spreading these falsehoods.

On this note, I would highlight that the Select Committee has recommended a multi-pronged approach to help deal with the issues of deliberate online falsehoods. It is very important to educate the public to help equip them with skills to tell false from fact and to build healthy online habits. Over the longer term, I believe that the new legislation, along with the suite of non-legislative measures put in place by the Government, will have the effect of cultivating an informed, discerning population. Mr Speaker, I support this Bill.

12.14 pm

Prof Lim Sun Sun (Nominated Member): Hon Members of the House, if "fake news" was the word of the year for 2017, POFMA could go down in Singapore’s history as the word of the year for 2019. Indeed, this acronym for the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, nifty by accident or design, has entered into our colourful Singlish lexicon. People have since been heard saying such things as "you better watch out, they POFMA you then you know!" or "wait you kena POFMA!". Indeed, so versatile is POFMA that it can serve as both a verb and a noun.

Jokes aside, the sheer liveliness with which this new Bill has been discussed – both online and off – has brought to light several issues. Singaporeans acknowledge the scourge of online falsehoods and recognise the need to do something about it. But Singaporeans also care deeply about our online space, and our freedom to discuss and debate within it.

Hence, there have been several aspects of the Bill that have stoked the greatest debate. These have been given considerable airing over both online and mainstream media, and addressed by the Minister yesterday. I would like to focus on the need for a collaborative framework within the Bill which, as currently drafted, is lacking.

Mr Speaker, the problem of online falsehoods is both multi-faceted and unwieldy, necessitating a more creative and collaborative solution. Indeed, borrowing from the experience of our Labour Movement with its tripartite model comprising the Government, employers and workers, we can foster an innovative tripartite model for tackling online falsehoods. One that comprises the Government, media and technology companies as well as media literate consumers.

As currently proposed, POFMA requires Internet intermediary companies to reactively respond to the directives of the state rather than proactively develop other strategies to douse the spread of falsehoods. This may not be the best use of their resources.

Instead, we should consider a more cooperative relationship that can facilitate mutual cooperation, education and engagement, where the state can be apprised of the latest technological trends and solutions, and technology companies can be schooled and reminded in the societal values that they must uphold.

Since being tabled, POFMA has drawn criticism for vesting individual Ministers with the power to determine falsehoods and take action. Such views reflect the visceral resistance that people have to granting exclusive authority to a small number of individuals in our pluralistic media landscape.

Furthermore, the proposed key measures of targeted and general corrections are based on evidence that when consumers are presented with both the original falsehood and the correction, they can consider the information in its totality, and form their own conclusions. Although POFMA is meant to be platform-agnostic, the evidence we currently have on the effects of corrections is platform-, context- and even demographic group-specific. This raises several intriguing questions.

Will targeted and general corrections counter-productively amplify the original falsehood to a wider audience, without a guarantee of the original or new audience reading the accompanying correction? Will we perversely and inadvertently create a cognitive shortcut where people seeing an official correction presume that the original falsehood must be true precisely because it is being vehemently debunked? Will falsehoods that do not come with corrections be summarily assumed to be true? Such unintended outcomes of a correction strategy cannot be ruled out, despite our best efforts and intentions.

With the relentless proliferation of new communication platforms, many of which increasingly offer encryption to safeguard privacy, consumer habits, skills and even biases will evolve constantly. The execution of targeted or general corrections will differ from platform to platform, translating into varying degrees of consumer exposure to the corrections, and with varying levels of effectiveness.

I would thus like to propose that if the Minister must retain the authority to issue directions expeditiously, he or she should be advised by a panel of experts representing the technology industry and media consumers, somewhat like the Film Consultative Panel. In other words, the Minister should have at his disposal the wisdom of an advisory panel that can determine whether a particular course of action is realistic or practical, or whether it could be counter-productive. For instance, a correction or take-down order in some situations might be either inefficacious or serve to further entrench the falsehood in question. Further, the type of targeted action could differ depending on the type of media platform – what works for Facebook may not be as effective for Telegram or YouTube. The role of the technology companies in this panel is thus not to promote vested interests, but to identify industry best practices on what is most efficacious and practicable in the circumstances.

The workings of such a panel need not slow down the process – members can be pre-appointed and deployed at short notice to advise the Minister. There is no issue of accountability because the Minister retains the final authority to take action. But with this panel, the Minister can act with the benefit of a wider range of views extending beyond those of civil servants.

Going beyond POFMA for the longer term, in order to better align with the democratised nature of our media environment, we should further concretise this tripartite approach to tackling online falsehoods. We should establish what I call an Information Integrity Institute, or ICube for short, to supplement POFMA's correction regime. It should be funded by contributions from all media and technology companies. These can be pegged to a graduated scale commensurate with, for example, their annual returns from advertising.

ICube will play a critical fact-checking role and develop the expertise to do so swiftly and effectively. It can host an online repository of verifications of falsehoods. Over time, it should develop a reputation as a reliable third party fact checker that is the first port of call for consumers in need of authentication. It should also play a capacity building role to professionalise newsmakers in the production of quality information, and raise ethical standards within the media and technology industries. It can also set the research agenda by offering grants to investigate the effects of online falsehoods and potential solutions to the problem.

Consumers too can also be involved in helping to flag suspect news. With robust fact-checking accessible to all consumers, we can nurture greater individual discernment, and reduce our reliance on state-issued corrections. Due to its shared funding, ICube will be less liable to attract allegations of partisanship, and therefore more likely to engender trust in its determinations of truth and falsity, and the verifications and refutations which it issues.

Communication platforms are evolving rapidly and along with them the media usage patterns of consumers. In light of these shifting complexities, the possible unintended effects of legislative approaches to addressing falsehoods must be closely monitored and amended if necessary.

12.23 pm

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): In Malay, Sir.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, the Government stated that the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill (POFMA) is a regulatory effort through legislation to deal with the problem of falsehoods that is becoming increasingly prevalent online, especially through social media. It is also stated that this piece of legislation is necessary to protect social cohesion.

Sir, the Workers’ Party agrees that there should be legislation to deal with the problem or phenomenon of online falsehoods even though the Workers’ Party has made the decision not to support and reject POFMA.

The Workers' Party disagrees with the basic principle of POFMA which provides powers to the Ministers, that is, the Executive, as the first arbiter in deciding whether a remark or statement can be considered as a falsehood or otherwise.

The Workers' Party suggests that the Judiciary and not the Executive become the first arbiter. We are of the view and we are confident that this suggestion is more appropriate in achieving the primary purpose of protecting and preserving social cohesion.

We disagree with the basic principles of POFMA because it contains elements that can lead to abuse of power and, if this happens, it will undermine social cohesion, something that runs counter to the primary objective of having a law to prevent and control online falsehoods.

We must acknowledge that in this context, social cohesion can also happen if the decisions and actions that are taken by the Minister contain elements of power abuse.

The concern over abuse of power has been mentioned by many groups – the public, politicians, journalists, civil society organisations, academics and so on ‒ ever since the First Reading of POFMA took place on 1 April 2019.

Sir, this concern is not without justification.

In my speech, I will first speak on two provisions contained in POFMA that have raised concerns about potential abuse of power on the part of the Government and, secondly, I will also touch on several arguments by the Government in its response to the negative aspects of POFMA.

Sir, the two provisions I referred to earlier can be found under clauses 2 and 4(f).

Clause 2 provides the definition that a false statement is a statement that is indeed false, or one that is not false but can be misleading. The word “misleading” in this definition raises concerns about the possibility of abuse of power taking place.

The Minister is a political member of the ruling party. Many have said that, if there are situations where criticisms are directed towards Government policies, or if there are negative opinions on the ruling party, can the Ministers make fair assessment and decision? This is because in this situation, the Ministers become a conflicted party. This can happen when, in order to defend Government policies as well as to defend the dignity of the ruling party, the word “misleading” under clause 2 can be exploited by the Ministers.

Sir, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew once said that the Government is the PAP and that the PAP is the Government, and I quote, "I make no apologies that the PAP is the Government and the Government is the PAP." His words can be interpreted as the Civil Service and statutory bodies are the PAP and vice versa. Based on this interpretation, it is not wrong if there are concerns about the possibility of abuse of power in order to defend the interest of a political party.

Sir, we have also seen the dilemma faced by Prime Minister Lee when he had to decide not to proceed with legal action against his siblings, Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling, on the Oxley Road issue which was discussed in Parliament. Mr Lee was in the position of a conflicted party. In this matter, allegations that impacted the integrity of the Prime Minister and the Government were brought forward. This was acknowledged by the Prime Minister himself, and I quote several statements from his speech.

The first quote.

(In English): "I am making this statement today because my siblings Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang have made serious allegation of abuse of power against me and my Government."

(In Malay): Second quote.

(In English): "These allegations are entirely baseless but they have already damaged Singapore's reputation. Unrebutted, they can affect Singaporeans' confidence in the Government."

(In Malay): Third quote.

(In English) "In normal circumstances, in fact, in any other imaginable circumstance than this, I would have sued immediately, because the accusation of the abuse of power is a very grave one, however baseless it may be. And it is, in fact, an attack not just on me, but on the integrity of the whole Government. But suing my own brother and sister in court would further besmirch our parents' names. At the end of the day, we are brothers and sister, and we are all our parents' children."

(In Malay): Prime Minister Lee's statements show that it is not easy to make decisions in a situation where he is a conflicted party. Many have questioned whether the decision taken by Prime Minister Lee regarding this matter is correct or not.

Sir, we cannot deny that POFMA will create a situation where the Ministers will be facing a dilemma just like what PM Lee faced.

Sir, I now turn to clause 4(f). This clause further reinforces the view on the possibility of abuse of power by the Ministers. This clause provides powers to the Ministers to take appropriate action if there are false or misleading statements intended to negatively impact public confidence in the Government. In such a situation, the Ministers, once again, become the conflicted party, if we take into account the interpretation of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s statement that the PAP is the Government and the Government is the PAP.

Sir, I would now like to touch on several arguments by the Government in response to public queries about POFMA.

First, when the Government was asked why Ministers were chosen instead of the Judiciary as first arbiter, the answer given was that the judicial process would take time and this is not acceptable because immediate action is needed to curb the spread of falsehoods and limit the potential damage on social cohesion.

Sir, this can be overcomed by having provisions so that the process to obtain a decision can be done as soon as possible. This point was already mentioned and elaborated on by my colleague Mr Pritam Singh.

The second argument is about the reply on the possibility of an irresponsible future government exploiting POFMA. Minister Shanmugam said that he could not give any assurances. I am of the view that the Minister's reply is problematic and baffling. Sir, the PAP Government has all along said that they are a government that is concerned about Singapore's future and the Government always formulates policies to be forward-looking and that assures a better future for Singapore. One example is the Government's policy of creating a second key for the national reserves where this function is given to the Elected President. The objective of having a second key is to prevent an irresponsible government from using the reserves as they please for political benefit.

It is rather surprising as to why there is a difference and inconsistency in the Government's approach and values when dealing with the possibility of abuse of power between the POFMA issue and the national reserves.

Sir, on a final note, through the arguments that I put forth, I believe the Members and the people can agree that the suggestion to make the Judiciary the sole arbiter is a better and appropriate action compared to the basic principles of POFMA which give the role of first arbiter to the Ministers. This is because if the Courts become the sole arbiter, there will be no concerns about abuse of power. As I have said earlier in my speech, if there is abuse of power, it will undermine social cohesion and this runs counter to the primary objective of having a law to deal with online falsehoods and manipulation.

12.32 pm

Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to address the amendments standing in my name indicated in the Order Paper Supplement with this Second Reading debate, please?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Ms Anthea Ong: Thank you. First, please let me thank Minister Shanmugam for his comprehensive reminder of the legislative intent for this Bill. I wish to state plainly that I support the legislative intent of the Bill because I agree that online falsehoods can distort and demean public debate in our secular democracy by inciting polarisation and populism for all the reasons that the Minister has outlined yesterday. I also agree and appreciate that the Government has a responsibility to protect harmony, social cohesion and the integrity of public institutions and political processes against online falsehoods.

Singapore joins robust democracies like Australia, France, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom seeking to use legislative measures to curb online falsehoods. This Bill has added first-in-the-world features such has Corrections Directions.

However, the Bill currently grants far reaching powers to the Government on online communications which raises significant concerns across different segments of our society that these tools may be used – intentionally or otherwise – to suppress or chill debate for political purposes. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, Ms Irene Quay and I submitted a Motion of amendment to this Bill as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement. The proposed amendments seek to mitigate these concerns by ensuring there is discipline in the way the Act would be utilised while ensuring that the Government has the ability to deal with the full range of threats posed by deliberate online falsehoods. The proposed amendments were, as part of our robust Parliamentary process, vetted by the Attorney-General's Chambers.

Mr Speaker, I will now address specific issues of concerns and corresponding proposed amendments. For any avoidance of doubt, I want to state plainly that my debate here is once again not about "why" we have this Bill – I reiterate that I agree online falsehoods should be legislated – but about how the Bill can realise its full function with these amendments.

A major area of contention that the House has heard is the definition of "fact" and "falsehood" under the Bill. A statement of fact is defined as "a statement which a reasonable person seeing, hearing or otherwise perceiving it would consider to be a representation of fact" while a statement is false "if it is false and misleading, whether wholly or in part, and whether on its own or in the context in which it appears".

I understand that the use of the phrase "a reasonable person" is common in legalese, and is used as shorthand for a hypothetical individual who exercises average care, skill and judgement in conduct, and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability. In the eyes of the court, this "reasonable person test" is one that is objective. However, it appears broad, imprecise and highly subjective to the ordinary citizen who would rightly be concerned with the chilling fear that giving an opinion could be wrongly construed as a false statement of fact.

Many non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are also understandably concerned with such an unclear definition because it is common for NGOs to rely on firsthand accounts of the individuals they represent. They often craft reports, public awareness campaigns and make recommendations on issues with these accounts as the primary source material. However, these accounts may conflict with official interpretations of data by policy-makers or are challenged as inaccurate, especially with the information asymmetry.

For instance, MOM has issued a total of 21 newsroom releases of a corrective nature that it refers to as "Fact Checks" since September 2017. Eighteen of those 21 "fact-checking" press releases, addressed NGO-published content about MOM's priorities, processes and practice. Many of these may technically be considered as opinions to most rather than facts yet MOM presents these instances as a "fact check", and formats these refutations with author's "claim" which is then countered by MOM's "fact".

Let me share another illustration that is not entirely hypothetical. A sexual assault victim might feel uncomfortable sharing the full details of his/her assault experience with the Police but might later disclose important details to case workers, counsellors and researchers. If the NGO grounds its recommendations to legislation on evidence from such accounts, would the Government reject the basis for such recommendations because the accounts do not align with their official records of those cases? Would the findings of the NGO be invalidated if they conflict with what the Government has on record as the “facts” of the case?

Besides the ordinary citizen and civil society, Mr Speaker, the concern with the definition of fact and false as drafted is also shared by the arts and media practitioners, academics and researchers. To mitigate this definitional concern and without meddling with matters of jurisprudence, we propose that a new section called the Principles of the Act be included in the body of the Act. One of the proposed clauses in this section states explicitly that the Bill targets materially false statements and does not apply to "opinions, comments, critiques, satire, parody, generalisations or statements of experiences".

I thank the Minister for agreeing with our intent for this amendment. Mr Speaker, what we are proposing here is certainly not new. We have similar legislative precedents for guiding principles on implementation and administration in the Mental Capacity and Vulnerable Adults Act. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira will elaborate further on this proposed amendment in his speech.

The Government has explicitly assured the public that this Bill is not intended to stifle or chill free speech, debate and criticism, and in fact aims to ensure such debate can occur without the corrosive presence of online falsehoods. However, the Bill as written, when tabled, does not contain such assurances that limit how the Bill's powers can be used.

Mr Speaker, the Ministers are granted powers to issue Part 3 and 4 Directions based on: one, if the statement is false; and two, it affects public interest. Section 4 of the Bill defines, I quote, "public interest" and the circumstances under which it is justified to take action. However, clause 4(f) is again broadly-worded and states: "action is justified under the Bill if the falsehood would prevent a diminution of public confidence in the the Government, an Organ of State, a statutory board, or a part of the Government, an Organ of State or a statutory board".

This definition is reminiscent of but broader than existing laws such as section 11(4) of the Computer Misuse Act where words like "serious harm" and "disruption" prefaces and qualifies the basis of a diminution of public confidence.

The concern is, with such a overreaching scope coupled with the broad and subjective definition of "fact" and "false", that any criticism of the Government could be considered a statement that would diminish public confidence as stated in the Bill. When does a statement cross the threshold from inconsequential personal expression to a threat to public confidence? Would someone opining that the Government is incompetent on Facebook be subject to a Correction Direction if their post gains enough shares or likes to be considered capable of influencing public confidence? In the case of the death of NSF Dominique Lee, Facebook recent posts by his mother critical of the Government received viral status and revived attention to the three-year-old case in 2016. Would her posts be targeted because they contributed to a wave of diminished public confidence in the Government?

Mr Speaker, we seek to amend clauses 13 and 25 of the Bill which set out the provisions for the two Directions, by adding the requirement that each Direction must be publicly justified by the Minister. This means that for each Direction that has been issued, the Government should publicly explain publicly explain or demonstrate three things: (a) evidence that demonstrates the falsehood, or the evidence setting forth the true facts; (b) the public interest objectives of this Direction, and (c) why this Direction is suitable to achieve those public interest objectives.

I am heartened that the Minister agrees with the need for Ministers to provide more specific reasons on falsity and on public interest since this is currently not in the Bill when it was tabled. He assured us yesterday in his speech. He assured this House that this will now be set out in subsidiary legislation. Subsidiary legislation, however, can be amended without coming before Parliament. So, our intent with the amendments clauses 13 and 25 remains unchanged – that this amendment will ensure that any future Minister and/or Government would have to first change the primary legislation – that is tabling it in Parliament, therefore a higher barrier to clear.

The appeals process in clauses 17, 29 and 35 could potentially limit the ability of appellants to seek judicial oversight because all appeals must be made first to the respective domain Minister. Currently, no time frame is provided in the Bill for a decision on the appeal to be made when the Bill was tabled. We seek to amend the clauses to state that the Minister shall do everything reasonable to ensure the appeals process is expeditious and low-cost.

Again, I am grateful that Minister Shanmugam has agreed that this provision that we have proposed is needed and clarified in his speech that this shall be addressed in subsidiary legislation with details. And again, Mr Speaker, our intent with clauses 17, 29 and 35 remains unchanged – that this amendment will ensure that any future Minister and/or Government that attempts to use subsidiary legislation or internal practice to unnecessarily delay the appeals process would have to first change the primary legislation.

Mr Speaker, the Select Committee’s report contained an extensive list of recommendations derived from 170 written representations and their own deliberations. They highlighted, and I quote, that "there is no one silver bullet to combat this complex problem, and a multi-pronged approach is necessary". Indeed, we must refrain from viewing legislation alone as a "silver bullet" that will sufficiently address this complex issue of online falsehoods. The Select Committee report listed five areas of proposed countermeasures: (a) nurture an informed public; (b) reinforce social trust and cohesion; (c) promote fact-checking, (d) disrupt online falsehoods; and (e) deal with threats to national security and sovereignty.

We propose that an independent council be set up to give effect to these Select Committee recommendations – to be called Independent Council on Online Falsehoods. I refer to this henceforth as "The Council". The Council's primary objective is to assure the public that the Government is accountable for the routine exercise of powers under the Act. It ensures that regardless whether Parliament takes an active interest in the exercise of powers under this Act, there will still be routine independent oversight. The Council is empowered to evaluate the actions of the Government under the Act, evaluate other measures taken by the Government to address online Falsehoods, and make recommendations to the Government on the exercise of powers under the Act. The Council is accountable to Singaporeans. In our amendment in Clause B(5)(i), the Council will publish annual reports of its activities, findings and recommendations. I do hope I clarified for Mr Christopher de Souza on his misunderstanding yesterday of the Council as taking over the Ministerial function – we had shared this in the Explanatory Notes which were sent out with the Notice of Amendment on 30 April 2019.

I am glad that the Minister also shared in his speech yesterday that he agrees with the intent of the independent council. I believe that councils for such a purpose do not lead to unnecessary bureaucracy because we have numerous precedents to cite in support of this. The National Council on Problem Gambling set up in 2005 in conjunction with the Casino Control Act to address the social issue of problem gambling. Casinos were introduced to Singapore for the first time then, and we may have been able to clearly justify the economic benefits of the new legislation then at that time, yet we could not have known with certainty the collateral issues and damage, social or otherwise, that may result. The impetus to set up the Independent Council on Online Falsehoods is the same as that of the National Council on Problem Gambling: a recognition that a dedicated independent council is best suited to undertake the national responsibility of assessing the impact of a new legislation and significant development for the country and providing specific expertise to advise the Government on the effectiveness of current measures.

However, Mr Speaker, I would like to highlight that unlike councils stipulated in other legislation, we are proposing that members of the Council are to be appointed by a Select Committee of Parliament, not by a Minister. We believe that this ensures that the Council stands as a separate and independent body from the Government. So, yes, we agree with the Minister that the Executive is accountable to the Parliament, and all Singaporeans. But the Council serves more than the role of oversight.

If there is one thing this House agrees unanimously on through this debate so far, it would be the importance of public education in our war on online falsehoods. Minister Iswaran has announced that a national framework to build information and media literacy will be launched by June 2019, jointly developed by MCI, the National Library Board, IMDA and the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore. MOE will also be rolling out a New Media Literacy toolkit to all Primary and Secondary schools, as well as Junior Colleges. The expertise and knowledge provided by the Council will help enrich these cross agency and whole of nation efforts.

Mr Speaker, I understand that we are the first country to enact such a complex legislative intervention against online falsehoods which could only mean that this will be a steep learning curve for us. If I may, Mr Speaker, I would like to request that all Singaporeans be given a review of all exercise of powers under the Bill by way of a Ministerial Statement in Parliament a year from the implementation of the Bill, with the findings and recommendations from the Independent Council on Online Falsehoods.

The best antidote against the potential harms brought about by fake news is an educated and discerning citizenry. An informed citizenry can only be created and sustained if the Government remains open to debate and criticism in an increasingly complex world. Mistrust in public institutions also facilitates the uptake of falsehoods.

Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat recently stated that the biggest "unknown" challenge that Singapore will face is the "nature of politics". I understand that to be a question of whether Singapore – that is, the people and its Government – will be able to collectively wield sufficient political consensus for the best interests of the country in the long run. I agree with Deputy Prime Minister Heng and believe for that to happen, we need the basis of trust between the Government and the people to be grounded in a climate of psychological security, one which allows all citizens to participate actively in the future of Singapore from a place of safety and responsibility, not fear of punitive consequences.

I acknowledge that it is in the interest of the Government to maintain and further public trust. This would mean using executive powers to protect society and limiting the use of these same powers when they may discourage or chill robust criticism. As the Minister has shared, this Bill seeks to scope down and calibrate the Government’s powers compared to existing laws including the Broadcasting Act, Telecoms Act, and so on. I would therefore sincerely urge the Government to consider reviewing these existing, harsher laws to honour the intent with this Bill of scoping down executive powers.

Mr Speaker, the Minister is right that we are no lawyers and so yes, this last month has been a rich yet steep learning curve for me especially without the benefit of an institutional apparatus but thankfully with the support of a community of lawyers and concerned stakeholders. I would like to humbly remind Members that Parliament has the final authority to approve any laws proposed by the Government. Parliament must meaningfully exercise that authority to further public confidence in our robust parliamentary processes. Minister Shanmugam has said that Ministers exercising their powers under this Bill will be accountable to Parliament and the public, and I believe that process starts with the consideration of these proposed amendments that we have put forth to the Bill, for an inclusive and thriving society that we will and can be.

Finally, I also want to second Ms Irene Quay’s call yesterday for the Whip to be lifted. I urge Members of this House to review the amendments set out in the Order Paper Supplement. Your vote for the specific amendments does not mean you are standing against the legislative intent of the Bill to curb online harms from falsehoods. It means you believe in this parliamentary process to register your, and your constituents’, concerns with the Bill and to ensure that this and future governments are bound to the intent of the Bill.

12.52 pm

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. The threat of online falsehoods is a real and insidious threat that subverts the idealistic notions of free speech. As a teenager, I grew up believing in the concept of the marketplace of ideas where if everyone is free to speak, eventually lies would be exposed and the truth would prevail.

On this basis, there is very little need for the Government to legislate in relation to free speech. Subsequently though, the experiences of life and certainly the study of law have made it clear to me that this idealistic notion is not supported by real world problems.

Speech is restricted for many different reasons. The laws of almost all countries prevent inciting violence or inducing people to commit crimes. Defamation also results in liability in many countries. Hate speech is also getting more attention. In Singapore, there have always been laws that prevent people inciting hatred against others. Generally, the law steps in when freedom of speech is abused to cause harm.

The latest abuse of free speech is the threat of fake news. Minister Shanmugam has set out in vivid colour the nature of this threat in his speech. Falsehoods are deliberately created, for example, by foreign state actors to interfere with and subvert governments and electoral processes in other countries. The fact that US Presidential Election and the Brexit vote involved significant amounts of fake news being circulated and relied on by voters, shows that even the most advanced democracies are vulnerable to this threat.

In parallel, there are many who profit from fake news and these include those who originate as well as those who help circulate it, such as social media platforms who make money from advertising revenues.

Fake news is often sensational, interesting and plausible, so it goes viral. The cost to produce it is not so high as no real research work is needed and it is easy to circulate. In contrast, serious news providers are suffering because the cost of producing real news is high. You have to pay journalists, opinion writers, the cost of publication and even air time.

Ironically, after incurring all these costs to produce real news or considered opinions, which is often not sensational because they are presented fairly, they are increasingly losing market share to those that peddle fake news. News providers all over the world are suffering from falling revenues and profitability. Indeed, this is the complete inverse of the marketplace of ideas – the fake news prevail over the truth.

Essentially, the truth gets drowned out by falsehoods because it is more expensive to produce, less interesting and, ultimately, there are less people producing it as news providers go out of business. This, in turn, also subverts the democratic process which works best when people are well-informed and able to make decisions based on the facts.

It is clear that everyone in this House agrees fake news is a threat. The differences in relation to this Bill are in fact relatively minor, and it has to do in how to address this threat.

My friends from the Workers' Party are with us on the nature of the threat. Their main difference of opinion is they believe the Judiciary should make the decision first and issue directions, rather than the Executive.

What the Bill envisions is a competent authority because fake news is a relatively prevalent problem. Fake news is easy to generate, it is going to be voluminous, and you will need people who will be able to deal with this as and when it comes up. So, you need people who can make a large number of decisions relatively quickly. In this sense, it makes perfect sense to leave it to the Executive or a competent authority. If someone disagrees with the competent authority's decision, they can take it up to the Minister. The allegations that Ministers will abuse power and insinuations that because they are all from the party, it will be used for political purposes; if a Minister were to do that, it can be taken up to the Judiciary. The judicial process is a transparent one. The Judge will decide one way or the other, the Government does not always win, so it is a fair process and it will be open to public scrutiny. So, if there is any abuse of power, there will be public scrutiny on this as well.

In my view, it is a fairly sensible mechanism because it allows things to function efficiently while creating avenues for checks and balances. And in government, you need efficiency. Fake news moves fast and moves quickly, you need an authority to deal with it in a quick way.

I was also interested in the variety of tools. A lot of attention has been given to the Directions which include statements of correction. Of course, this is likely to be the most commonly used tool. But there are also interesting powers included in the Bill which includes powers against false amplifiers and fake news websites. Can the Minister elaborate on how these powers would be used?

There is also an interesting question about what happens to fake news that is already there, already in the public domain, that means news that is not generated in future. Will these laws apply and give the authority powers to deal with that as well? My own view is that it should because the fake news is out there.

The Workers' Party made a lot of allegations about how the Judiciary would be impartial and, therefore, should make the decision and the Judiciary can make the decision quickly. As a practising lawyer, I have to say the Judiciary have a very huge case load. If the Executive have to go before a Judge for every single decision, which we would have to wait several days, depending, because fake news is so easy to generate. In a volatile period, you may have hundreds of fake news articles circulating in a day. Are you supposed to have hundreds of applications in court with the Executive going up against the defendant each time and the Judges to decide under the gun? That would be a complete abuse of the judicial process, a waste of resources and ineffective against the threat. So, I think it is completely unworkable.

But the system of having judicial scrutiny at the end, I think, is actually very effective and very logical, because in a sense, the authority decides first, the Minister has a chance to review, and if the Minister makes an improper decision, that would be under scrutiny by the Judiciary and by the public in that process. So, the Minister is in fact taking more political risk by doing that as opposed to leaving it to the judges, in which case the political risk can be abdicated. So, in this sense, it puts responsibility in the right place for an efficient operation of the mechanism.

There is also an amendment filed by some of our friends, the Nominated Members of Parliament, which include a large number of additional checks. I am grateful they put so much thought into the process and some of the points are well made, in particular, the one about the Minister having to make the decision quickly. I think this is going to be captured in the subsidiary legislation.

But with the greatest of respect to my friends, I do not think a lot of the other mechanisms are probably necessary, including the setting up of a council. Because what you want is a process that operates well and efficiently. It seems to me the work of the council really is to scrutinise how the authorities are exercising their powers and to publish reports on that. I think that can equally well be done by academics or people who have access to the information, and questions in Parliament can be filed about decisions made by the Minister, how many have been made, and so on.

So, I do not think we need to set up another body by statute to achieve this objective. I think many of the objectives for scrutiny and all that can be done through much simpler mechanisms. With that Mr Speaker, I stand and support the Bill. I think it is much needed legislation to deal with the present threat.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank hon Member Mr Vikram Nair for his comments. Just to follow up on his point that the volume of applications may upset the process, and efficiency could be at risk. When we passed POHA yesterday, this House envisaged the setting up of the Protection from Harassment Courts. The remedies that are provided for under POFMA are also available to ordinary Singaporeans, companies in Singapore, thousands of companies under POHA. I would have imagined that the Court actually would be prepared for this volume of applications that could be made to it. Even more so, as we found out yesterday the application process is quite simple. My point is, would it not be foreseeable that actually the Courts could take on that additional task of looking through applications whether it comes from an individual, a company or the Government?

Mr Vikram Nair: My view is that it is unnecessary for the Court to do so and especially if you are in a "hot" situation, say, largely, elections as has happened in the US and in Europe. You have hundreds of articles a day; how are the judges going to come in and make a decision? Is the Executive supposed to come in and take out a hundred applications and then get the respondent for each one? It is far better if they can just make the decision and get it done. And then, if there is a challenge later, that can come up through the judicial process, which is I think a more prudent use of judicial resources.

I believe that the threat of online harassment will not be as prevalent as fake news, because fake news tends to coalesce around certain periods of time and that is when you need to move fast.

Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Just an additional point of clarification to the hon Member, Mr Vikram Nair. He mentioned that the process of a judicial review of directives under POFMA would be unworkable because there would be hundreds of cases of fake news every day. Is the hon Member suggesting that the powers in the POFMA are likely to be exercised, does the hon Member envisage that these powers are likely to be exercised several hundred times every day?

Mr Vikram Nair: It may have to be, depending on the volume of attack we come under, but certainly I think in the elections in Europe and the US, during those periods, there was very large amounts of fake news.

1.03 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir. The Workers' Party opposes the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation (POFMA) Bill. Much as I believe that there is a need for some form of legislation to deal with online falsehoods, the remedy must be appropriate. Indeed, the Bill has generated much concerns and objections from many Singaporeans since its first reading in April. I will share some of the concerns I have about the POFMA Bill.

As part of the conditions for the granting of the various directions under this Bill, under clause 4, the Minister must be of the opinion that it is in the public interest to issue such a Direction, and clause 4 provides a list of definitions or a set of different scenarios of what constituted "in the public interest".

I am concerned with some of the definitions provided in clause 4. I find them to be too general and the precise scope is not clearly spelt out. For example, in the context of falsehoods, what does it mean by "to protect public health or public finances" or "to secure public safety or public tranquility" under clause 4? What acts or words will definitively trigger each of these definitions?

This brings me to the second point of concern about what is in the public interest. For part 3 and 4 Directions, a person who has been served with a Correction or stop Direction, may appeal to the High Court against the Directions after having first applied to the Minister. However, for both part 3 and part 4 Directions, the appeal provisions expressly provide that the High Court may only set aside such a direction on three grounds of appeal as seen in clauses 17(5) and 29(5).

The issue of whether the Minister was correct or not in arriving in his opinion that it is in the public interest to issue the Direction itself does not come within the three grounds of appeal and cannot be decided by the Court on appeal under clause 17 or 29. Similarly, the exact meaning and coverage of the definitions provided in clause 4 cannot be decided by the Court hearing an appeal under clause 17 or 29.

In this connection, the Minister mentioned the availability of judicial review yesterday. As things stand, the procedure and cost regimes for judicial review will be quite different from the procedure and costs regimes for the appeal procedure under clause 17(5) and 29(5). Does the Minister intend to apply the same costs, procedure and timeline requirements for all Court applications or appeal under POFMA including judicial review?

Would it not be better for the Bill to expressly provide for the Court's ultimate jurisdiction over all areas of the Bill including the issue of public interest, and for the same procedure and costs mechanism to apply?

Finally, according to the Explanatory Statement of the Bill, the list of definitions under clause 4 is non-exhaustive. I am concerned about what else may be read by a Minister as a further definition or example of "in the public interest" in the future.

Still on clause 4 of the Bill, clause 4(f) provides for one definition of doing anything in the public interest if the doing is to prevent a diminution of public confidence in the performance of any duty or function of, or in the exercise of any power by the Government, an Organ of state, a Statutory Board and so on.

I believe that the diminution of confidence in Government as a factor warranting legislative action is not found in fake news legislation elsewhere in the world. I am concerned that the extension of the definition of public interest to include not diminishing public confidence in the Government may deter or prevent bona fide criticism and well-meaning intentions to expose genuine Government failings. Above all, no government will always be correct, perfect or beyond reproach. It is for the Government, by its own efforts, to earn and maintain public confidence in itself and any use of law to deter the diminution of public confidence will run counter to that.

Next, the Bill provides, at clause 2(2), the definition of a statement of fact and a definition of when a statement is false.

Already, many commentators have said that the distinction between a statement of fact and an opinion may not always be easy to draw, not to mention the difference between a statement of fact and an opinion of a statement of fact. Different surveys using different parameters produce different outcomes; they may all not be wrong, they may even constitute statement of facts in different ways but they prove that there can be divergence on what can constitute statement of facts.

Under the Bill, a statement is false if it is false or misleading, whether wholly or in part, and whether on its own or in the context in which it appears. The definition is troubling. The definition of "if it is false or misleading, whether wholly or in part, whether on its own or in the context in which it appears" under clause 2(2) is too wide especially the requirement of "misleading" alone.

It would be misleading according to whose standards or opinion? And how would it be misleading?

For example, if I were to say something in good faith according to my own views, but what if the Minister and even the Court decides that it meant something else and is different from what I have explained? I did not even think of the Minister's view when I uttered those words. Would that not be very unfair to me as I did not intend that meaning? Why should I be subject to his Correction or stop Directions? Why should I have to appeal to the Courts? Should he not apply to the Court if he feels aggrieved in the first place and the courts can decide at first instance whether a Correction or stop Direction is necessary?

Next, according to clause 2(2), an article can be deemed to be a false statement even if only a part of it or a small part of it is false or misleading. Is there a risk that as a result of a small or even irrelevant or inconsequential factual error in an otherwise cogent article with serious issues, the article can be taken down, preventing the bulk of the meritorious arguments and issues raised in the article from being read and disseminated?

I am also troubled by the definitions of "statement of facts" which have been defined as not false or misleading, rather than just "false" or "false and misleading". Such definitions can be opened to different interpretations. For example, if I were to tell some people that I made a Police report against someone. In my opinion, that is a simple statement of fact, period; there is nothing much to disagree or to dispute. I made the Police report, surely I know that as a fact. But when one applies the definition "misleading", what I have said may be interpreted by another to be something beyond what I ever intended to say or mean. And history has shown that such statements could be subject to different interpretations.

And how would it affect articles or reports of an opinion nature which premised its theories or findings on anonymous contributors? This could be by a journalist or even an academic. Those who contributed their opinion or feedback or even to a survey may have good personal reasons for their anonymity and not necessarily because they are, as a matter of integrity, afraid to stand up for what they have said. How will the journalist or newspaper be able to challenge an order on appeal given the circumstances? I fear that this new law will discourage journalists in their writings particularly where the source of information cannot, for whatever reasons, be fully disclosed or cited in Court.

To me, the most uncomfortable aspect of the Bill is the Minister being the first and even final arbiter under this Bill. The Workers' Party objects to the Minister being an arbiter under this Bill. We think that the Minister in question should apply to the Courts for an order under this Bill and let the Courts be the sole arbiter.

Many in Singapore have voiced this concern about the Government or the Minister being the final arbiter. The Government has been saying that the courts are the final arbiter. For part 3 and 4 Directions, that is only true insofar as any appeal comes within the three narrow grounds in clauses 17(5) and 29(5). If the Courts are the final arbiter, why circumscribe and limit their powers in these ways? Why not let the Courts be the sole arbiter under this Bill?

As I have said earlier, even the Minister's opinion of whether the Minister was correct or not in arriving at his opinion that it is in the public interest to issue the direction cannot be decided by the court when it hears an appeal under clause 17 or 29.

And even for appeal under the three grounds in clauses 17(5) and 29(5), it may only be true if the party being subjected to a Minister's order under this Bill does in fact actually appeal to the courts. Until then, there is no judicial scrutiny. And if the party affected does not appeal to the court for whatever reason, the Minister's order would have gone unscrutinised by the High Court – rightly or wrongly.

Even when the appeal is pending, the Bill expressly provides for the Minister's Direction to continue. Would this not create injustice if the appeal was later allowed, proving that the Minister was wrong in the first place? In such cases, if the aggrieved person has suffered damages, he may not even be able to claim against the Minister.

Further, in certain circumstances, a Minister may potentially find himself in a position of conflict of interest when he invokes POFMA in respect of criticisms or complaints of wrongdoing either on his part or in respect of his own Ministry. Is there any provision to handle such conflict of interest?

Next, we do not have a Freedom of Information regime and well-meaning citizens may not have the same access to information unlike the Government and complaints may have arisen from well-meaning people where it may not be convenient to disclose the source of their information.

In the situation where the Government has access to certain information and for whatever reason refuses to disclose full facts in the first place, even on request, it would be unfair to penalise anyone arising from a media report or something discussed in social media.

Significantly, the procedure under POFMA is different from the procedure in POHA where the court there is truly the one and only arbiter. Any aggrieved person wishing to make an application under POHA applies to the court. If that works for everyone else, should the same procedure not apply to the Government in the case of POFMA?

In my view, the Courts should be given the exclusive rights to decide on any application under POFMA at first instance and the Courts' jurisdiction should extend to all areas and issues under the Bill.

Next, I think the same Court should handle and decide both POHA and POFMA applications. This is not currently the case as under the POFMA Bill, the High Court hears any appeal against the Minister's Direction or order. On the other hand, applications under POHA are heard in the State Court.

Without derogating from my earlier position that the courts should be the only arbiter for POFMA, let me now deal with some procedural aspects of the Bill.

For parts 3 and 4 of the Bill, if the affected person wishes to appeal to the court against the Minister's stop or Correction Direction, he first needs to apply to the Minister in question to vary or cancel the order. This seems odd to me as I am rather circumspect that a Minister will change his mind within a matter of days after his order.

The additional step of notifying the Minister is akin to being part of the appeal process itself and will merely add time to the affected person's wait for the court hearing his appeal, but time may be of the essence to the affected person especially when the Minister's Direction is wrongful and is bringing wrongful harm to the individual. In any case, I find the idea of, in effect, appealing to the accuser to be a little odd.

Next, in POHA an aggrieved party apply for an order has essentially the burden of proving his case to the judge deciding on whether an order should be given. In POFMA, the aggrieved party, in this case a Minister or the Government, does not have to prove to any authority or adjudicator when it first decides on a direction under the Bill, such as a Correction Direction or a stop communication Direction.

Even when a defendant who is subject to a Part 3 direction feels that the minister is wrong in issuing such a direction and wishes to appeal to the Courts, the Minister does not seem to have the primary burden of persuading the Court de novo that it is entitled to issue the order in question. In any case, this is not clearly or expressly set out in the Bill.

In both civil and communal actions, it would be fair to say that the plaintiff and the prosecutor, respectively, bear the primary burden to prove the case in Courts. The burden of proof in an appeal under clause 17 or 29 of POFMA appears to be on the person who is the subject of a Minister's Directions under POFMA. This should not be the case. Surely, the Minister and the Government as the aggrieved party must always bear the burden of proof for any Direction or order under POFMA.

In closing, the Minister cannot be an arbiter for any order or direction under POFMA. The Courts should be given that role exclusively. Like many Singaporeans, I fear that the Bill, if passed, will create a chilling effect, whether for journalists, legitimate interest groups, academics or the average Singaporean. It may deter people from speaking up. It may encourage journalists or academics to err on the side of caution for falling foul of the law. If a Minister or the Government is not forthcoming in providing clarificatory facts, it may encourage journalists or even common citizens to practise self-censorship at the expense of truth. It will discourage bona fide criticism and stifle public debate. Along with my Workers' Party colleagues, I cannot support the Bill.

1.17 pm

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, in 1633 the scientist Galileo Galilei was put on trial by the Roman Inquisition of the Catholic Church. The charge? Promoting the heliocentric theory that the Earth travels around the Sun. We take this as fact today. But the geocentric model, which incorrectly puts Earth at the centre of the Universe, was accepted fact for thousands of years. Galileo’s contribution was to use the first astronomical telescope – which he invented – to precisely observe the stars. Galileo argued these observations meant the heliocentric model was a provable fact, and not a theory. This forced the Inquisition to act.

The Inquisition did not reject Galileo's scientific evidence. However, they found his evidence fundamentally incompatible with The Bible. The Bible has passages stating the Earth is immovable. The Inquisition interpreted this as a matter of fact. Galileo was forced to recant, on pain of being condemned as a heretic. His books were forbidden. Legend has it that Galileo said, after recanting, “And yet it moves”. Mr Speaker, beliefs do not change the nature of reality.

What are the lessons for this debate? I take three points. First, when we speak of the problem of online falsehoods the real concern is our shared reality as a society. I agree with the Minister that this is the central concern: what is the infrastructure of facts that we depend on as a society? Galileo was part of a wider battle to define shared reality at the end of the Renaissance in Europe. Would reality be defined by science and reason, or by tradition and religion?

Second, governments are concerned about shared reality, because our beliefs have practical consequences. Galileo's findings supported a reality that threatened the temporal power of the Church. Populists today and in history have spread lies to promote the alternative reality where society is under threat justifying the use of extraordinary powers to save democracy.

Points one and two, taken together, mean that judgements about shared reality by governments are inherently political acts. I do not mean they are always partisan acts, carried out for narrow political gain. A good government would not act that way. I trust that this Government would not. But they are political acts because they serve the definition of public interest that the government of the day believes in.

Third, governments can get assessments of fact wrong. The Church of Galileo’s time was not opposed to science. The earliest degrees granted by universities were in the fields of law, medicine and theology. Galileo’s supporters included princes and priests of the Church. They were among the few people in Europe who had the education at the time to appreciate his findings. But even a government of experts can have blind spots.

This brings us to the central dilemma. A good government must act to defend the shared reality that best serves the public interest. But even a good government may face the temptation to gradually conflate the public interest with their own political gain. This may be subtle. It may be through sins of omission, by neglecting to fix blind spots in judgment, rather than by promoting falsehoods outright. It may be true to believe that the public interest demands the suppression of all competing ideologies. But as with Galileo, these good intentions may eventually lead a good government to ignore reality. That is why the best government of all will shackle itself where necessary rather than grant itself more power.

I believe this Government understands this dilemma more than most. That is why this Government sincerely believes it has crafted a Bill that shackles itself while granting the necessary powers to defend our infrastructure of truth. Our disagreement is about whether this Bill has got this balance right.

Sir, let me put on the record who is concerned about this Bill. One hundred and twenty-four academics in Singapore and abroad, including 52 Singaporeans, signed a statement expressing concern that the Bill could adversely affect academic research on Singapore, especially in social sciences where critical research contests established facts and narratives. Other parties expressing concern include 30 Singaporean civil society and arts community organisations,The Asia Internet Coalition, traditional and independent online media, the International Commission for Jurists, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights.

I will stand corrected, but I do not think these parties are enemies of Singapore. I do not think they are agents of the forces who propagate online falsehoods. You will find in their statements broad agreement with the Bill’s legislative intent. I agree with the Bill's intent.

Online falsehoods are dangerous. Even if there is no malevolent intent, they may distort our shared reality and lead to harmful decisions. They are not readily corrected through self-regulation or education. They spread virally, and when there is a threat of imminent harm to society, government has a duty to act immediately to stop the threat. This Bill will create novel and proportionate tools, such as Correction Directions, that preserves online speech and promotes public education while minimising harm.

I do not agree with all of the concerns expressed by the parties I have cited. The Minister has been kind to correct some of the misconceptions out there. My concern rather is that some of the debate around this Bill has conflated criticism of the Bill with support for irresponsible freedom of speech or with sinister intent towards Singapore. Sir, constructive criticism is not an unpatriotic act.

Let me now speak for the group I am most familiar with. Academics do not challenge the right of governments or the public to dispute scientific facts. Knowledge advances by dispute. But such disputes must honour the essential character of scientific research, which is evidence based, driven by scientific methods, and held up to the highest standards of scrutiny.

Academics are concerned that when a government adjudicates scientific disputes there is a fundamental conflict of interest, as in my earlier example of Galileo and the Catholic Church. All governments have a political objective to defend a shared reality that suits their interest. For example, the United States Environmental Protection Agency changes its views on the climate change science depending on who is President. Is it in the public interest for science to be unnecessarily determined by politics?

The other concern is scientific reputation. An academic whose scientific findings are the subject of a direction would not be able to communicate them online without risk of contravening the direction. She might have to write to scientific journals to ask for a retraction or correction. The journal would ask why. If our Government is not able to answer to the satisfaction of international experts, it would bring scientific condemnation on our country. Sir, the United States can survive an administration with anti-scientific tendencies because good scientists have nowhere else to go for now. Is it in the public interest to discourage even inadvertently research that uses Singapore for field studies or to further our knowledge of social science and ourselves?

Let me now turn to why we tabled these amendments. We are concerned the Bill does not sufficiently limit, guide and oversee the exercise of Executive powers against online Falsehoods. Members have received our Explanatory Notes. Before I explain our amendments further I wish to first touch on points of agreement with the Bill. I thank the Minister and his staff for consulting with us throughout, though of course, we are solely responsible for the amendments.

We accept the two-part test for Executive action, including the definition of falsehood and the broad definition of the public interest. While we have concerns these give the Executive very broad powers, we could not develop constructive amendments that would be feasible for the Courts in trying facts, while also granting the Executive the discretion to act urgently to protect the public interest. We also accept the Executive must have power to act urgently. Developing an amendment to create a role for ex-ante judicial or independent oversight proved challenging, and risks considerable harm in the event of an immediate threat. Nonetheless, accepting the Bill as it is, in these areas, means we accept the Executive should have considerable latitude.

Rather, we decided to do is the best way we feel of limiting the discretion of the Executive was to ensure that we develop robust institutions within and without Government, to address online Falsehoods without fear or favour. These institution building amendments have two major parts. The Principles of Act, and the Independent Council Against Online Falsehoods. In addition our amendments require that any Directions issued are publicly justified, and require that the appeals process is expedited. My colleague Ms Anthea Ong has spoken on the Council. I will discuss the Principles which provide a guide to the exercise of powers under the Act.

The Principles of Act state that well-informed, free and critical speech is necessary for a well-functioning democracy, so the Act should be applied carefully to avoid chilling such speech. It codifies that the Act is targeted at statements which are materially false and not opinions, comments, critiques, satire, parody, generalisations or statements of experiences.

It sets out that the Act should be used proportionately, so the least restrictive tools, such as Corrections, are used first, with the most restrictive – take-downs – used only when necessary. It also protects the role of research in society as research often contests established facts or ideas in order to advance knowledge by stating that differences in facts established by an authority and a researcher do not imply falsehood just by that difference alone.

I believe the Minister’s view is that the Government accepts many of these Principles. However, the Minister also believes the Principles create legislative confusion because they may already duplicate elements present in the Bill or in law. For example, I believe the Minister's view – and that of a Senior Counsel – is that proportionality in the exercise of powers is already incorporated in the "necessary or expedient" term used in the public interest clause of the Bill. I stand corrected if I have misunderstood.

But given proportionality is so important to avoid unnecessarily restricting speech and to build trust with the public, we believe the Bill must state clearly the principles behind what proportionality means in practice. We can accept that there may be better ways of phrasing the Principles. However, we disagree that it would be sufficient to have the Bill without the Principles of Act at all, or other amendments in plain language that have similar effect.

The Government has previously defined plain language Principles of the Act in the Mental Capacity Act and the Vulnerable Adults Act. This is important because these Acts give Government officials significant power over the autonomy and rights of persons. This Bill will also give Government officials significant powers over speech.

It is crucial that every Government official involved in the exercise of powers abide by a common set of principles in administering the Act. What is the difference between doing so in the Bill, versus leaving it to subsidiary legislation or internal regulation? Sir, the difference is governance. Subsidiary legislation can be changed without a Parliamentary vote. The primary legislation cannot.

The real value, Sir, of these Principles comes in using them as a basis for building an institution that the public trusts. An institution that is not dependent on the political interests in charge. I believe the opposing benches are agreed that one such institution is the Judiciary. But we know there may be practical difficulties with having the Courts decide on fast-moving online falsehoods.

So, why not a third way, why not strengthen the capacity of the Civil Service to implement these rules fairly, guided by the Principles.

I will now discuss what this Act will mean in practice. How would the Executive use the powers under this Act? One way to answer this is to examine how the Government has already been addressing the problem of online falsehoods. I conducted a review of Government actions against misinformation from 2015 to 2019. This review documented all posts on the Government's Factually website, as well as Fact Checks issued by MOM and MSF.

I first established for each Government action whether POFM would apply. Is there a specific subject statement that is potentially false? I assumed that the public interest test would be satisfied since these cases were serious enough for a Government response. Then, I examined the dispute. Is it mainly a dispute over facts or a dispute over conclusions drawn from facts that are not themselves contested? Finally, I examined whether the Ministry responded using keywords that declare publicly whether this case involves a matter for clarification, a misrepresentation or an outright falsehood.

Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to display a slide on the LED screens?

Mr Speaker: Yes, please. [A slide was shown to hon Members.]

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Thank you. I analysed 170 cases of Government action against online misinformation from 2015 to 2019; 110 cases involve no disputed facts, they are simply clarifications of policy. The Act would not apply. Of the remaining 60 cases, while facts were disputed, seven did not identify a subject statement. The Act would not apply.

Most Government actions on misinformation over the last few years would not have used any powers under the act because it does not apply. There is either no specific disputed fact or no identifiable subject statement.

The remaining 53 cases are for specific subject statements with an identifiable source. These are cases where the Act may have potentially applied retrospectively, for example. Forty-three of these 53 cases are disputes involving the facts. The other 10 involve disputes over the conclusions drawn from facts.

Overall, the Government is quite clear about how it labels disputes involving the facts. Most are considered falsehoods, although some are considered clarifications or misrepresentations instead.

What I am concerned about is those cases which are declared to be falsehoods by the language the Government uses, although the dispute is actually over conclusions drawn from facts.

Let me illustrate with one example from MSF, although I am not picking on the Ministry; it is actually one of my favourite Ministries. In 2017, MSF reported data showing a sharp rise in ComCare assistance recipients between 2012 and 2015. A subject statement made the claim that this was and I quote, "the worst poverty result ever officially reported in Singapore", end quote. MSF called this and I quote, "not true", end quote, and MSF explained that a growth in ComCare recipients reflects more generous social welfare policies. Thank you, MSF.

My view is that this is a difference of opinion based on the same facts and not a falsehood. I will stand corrected, but I do not think there was an attempt by the subject statement to make up or distort the ComCare numbers. It was simply an interpretation of the facts. I think a Ministry should be free to make value judgements about criticism including labelling criticisms as false. But more caution is required to avoid the incorrect exercise of powers under the Act. The Ministry must set the record straight. But these differences in opinion may arise because the public may only have partial information. In this case, they may know about ComCare receipts but they may not know about changes in social welfare policy. We should not label such differences in interpretation as falsehoods, especially if the Ministry has not released all the relevant information.

Sir, I know this Government shares my conviction that government must be transparent and open in administration. We must ensure the public continues to have trust in the Government. This is why we have proposed the Principles of Act, which will help to build an institution that appropriately limits the exercise of these important powers.

Mr Speaker, I will not stand against the Bill that I believe, in the hands of a just and capable Government, will be used in the public interest. I agree with the principles of the Bill, and I support the Second Reading of this Bill. But I find it difficult to support final passage of this Bill unless I am satisfied the Bill contains strong protections against abuse by an unjust future Government. I understand why Members of the Government may not share my reservations. I accept they have great confidence that their present good governance will continue. But for me, this is a matter of policy and of conscience. I hope the Government will consider allowing a conscience vote for its Members.

1.35 pm

Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng (Pioneer): Before I speak on this Bill, Mr Speaker, I would like to comment on what Assoc Prof Walter Theseira talked about. I think as a Member of the House, I too appreciate and support free speech. I too support the investigation and exploration of new ideas and so forth. I believe that if there is indeed a "Galileo" today in Singapore, we will all be cheering rather than stopping what he is doing.

This Bill while met with quite a lot of discussion, is actually not that complex. While there are many discussions about what truth is – is it epistemological truth? Is it David Hume's version of it? Is it evidence before the Courts? But fundamentally, we have a real practical problem and we have to deal with it.

Rather than tinkering with the separation of powers at the state, be it elected Members and the party having the largest number of Members forms the Government and separating this Executive power with Legislative power and Judicial power – and we have modified that with Presidential powers – to tinker with this, just for the purpose of this Bill, is quite dangerous. I think all parties should give deep thought to whether or not we should introduce another layer of power structure, which the Nominated Members of the Parliament called the Independent Council to oversee the Government when Ministers supported by civil servants, are already elected, already have a mandate, to ensure peace and order in the society and is always accountable for their actions in this Bill through a judicial review or statutory appeal. But more importantly, every five years, at the ballot box. Would an Independent Council be subject to that? I think we need to think carefully before we decide which direction to take.

It is very heartening that most Members of the Parliament who have spoken agree that fake news is a real problem and we need to deal with it, especially when public interest is at stake. As I understand listening to Minister Shanmugam, this Bill applies only on two conjunctive conditions. One, falsehoods. But that is not enough. Two, public interest is harmed. So, the parts of the public critique and comments and criticism that do not impinge on these two conditions, would be free to flow, as they have been. But the disagreement seems to be, "Who should be the decision maker?" Should it be the Executive branch, which I interpret as the Minister supported by the civil service; or the Courts; or a separate council. Now, I understand from the Nominated Members of the Parliament that the separate council is not the party who would make the decision whether an issue is true or false, but to be a review committee, over and above, for Executive branch decisions. I do not see where they get the mandate to do that.

There can be three possible bodies which can be the decision maker. Let us see which makes the most sense. To answer this question, it is important to know that fake news that have gone viral and yet undermine public interest have to be dealt with very very quickly. So, "speed" I think is the first criterion to judge whether Executive branch is best placed, Judiciary is best placed or an independent council to oversee is best placed.

We have heard many examples that have been discussed here. I will just point out two. In March this year, videos circulating on Facebook, Snapchat and so on, claims kidnappers in vans are abducting children for prostitution and illegal organ trades. This happened in the French area. The accusations were made, falsely of course, against the French Roma community or the Gypsies. The Gypsies were attacked by unprovoked vigilante mobs, even though this rumour is totally false and baseless. Two men from the Roma community were hospitalised and their van burnt.

Another example in Medan, Indonesia, in July 2016, a woman complained about the use of loudspeakers at a mosque near her home. Rumour has it then, fake news, that she also threw items at the mosque and disrupted prayer sessions. This incited angry mobs who started burning and ransacking Buddhist temples with damages running into billions of Rupiahs. So, a lack of speed, and these are the consequences.

The second criterion, I believe is, the issue on "accountability". If the Government is elected and the party with the most seats in Parliament forms the government, they have not only the mandate and responsibility, they are accountable to make sure that public peace and social stability is at all times preserved. It also has the resources, being backed by the Civil Service and the expertise in many, many domains, whether it is medical, security, health, water and so on. Falsehoods can be quite insidious in any one of these areas. I really do not see another institution in Singapore which has this deep expertise in many, many domains, as I described.

In management science, it is logical that the party who is held accountable and with the resources and the expertise, must be the party who should act. And so, I believe and I support that the Executive branch supported by the Civil Service should be the right party to act.

I also want to point out that in the Select Committee report, there was a recommendation number 12, and I have an excerpt here: "New legislation", talking about POFMA, "will need to be implemented to combat online falsehoods and such legislation should have the following objectives." And prime among them, number one, "the measures will need to achieve the objective of breaking virality by being effective in a matter of hours." I am quoting the Select Committee report.

I would also want to point out that Mr Pritam Singh, is a member of the Select Committee, and the Committee collectively agreed, that whatever law is legislated and whoever is the decision maker, it is very very important that actions must be able to be taken in a matter of hours.

Just yesterday, I heard Mr Singh debating on the POHA Bill. He was basically asking that, if the aggrieved party wants to have an expedited protection order and so on, would the Court be fast enough. So, I see a contradiction of why the Workers' Party is supporting the Judiciary as the party to make such orders in the case of the POFMA. As a Member, and the Workers' Party Leader in the Select Committee, he agreed to recommendation number 12, that whichever party is to be made the decision maker, that party must be able to act in a matter of hours.

Also, there was a paragraph in the Select Committee report, paragraph 364(B), where Assoc Prof Goh Yi Han, Dean of the SMU School of Law, was a proponent of the Executive option. He is a learned man, in the School of Law and he supported the Executive option, which means that the Minster, supported by the Civil Service, will be the party making such decisions. And here again, I want to quote what the report said: "Assoc Prof Goh explained that the judicial process, while important, may not be sufficiently fast to deal with the rapid spread of online falsehoods. Court processes require an application for Court Order to be made, together with a supporting affidavit. The application must then be served on the person against whom the order is sought and that person can then file an affidavit in reply. So the Court may require a hearing before coming to any decision."

So, there are eminent and learned persons who support the Executive being the decision maker.

But to be fair, there were also some representors at the Select Committee who were sceptical of the Executive action, but they too, and I quote from the report: "also accepted that there are situations such as those involving public order, national security and workings of public institutions where only the Executive", and these are the sceptics who were representing to the Select Committee, "where only the Executive will hold the facts and where facts should be backed of the authority of the Executive." Here, I assume the whole machinery of the Civil Service supporting the Executive.

While POFMA is to empower Ministers and Civil Service to act, of course, the Court is empowered as a final arbiter of truth. Actually, to think about it, at the end of the day, the ultimate arbiter are the voters at the ballot box. Ultimately, the court of public opinion will be the final judge of whether the Government has done its job well.

So, I am less excited about the idealism or the imagined complexity, or some may say the falsehood around the POFMA Bill, than the practical need for us to act quickly against a very real present and very critical problem – fake news.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

1.47 pm

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was out of the Chamber when Mr Foo made his speech but I have noted Mr Cedric Foo's comments. Just to be sure so that I do not misquote him, I understand his two main issues were that I was part of the Select Committee and the Select Committee's recommendation was that quick action was important – response time being within a matter of hours. That was the first. And second was, that yesterday during the POHA debate, I asked whether Courts will be fast enough.

I will deal with the second issue first because that is more pertinent. We found out during the POHA debate yesterday that when there is an issue affecting an individual or a company, there is an easy form to fill out – or at least, this is what the Minister assured us – for individuals or companies to take action to deal with online falsehoods quickly. And let us remember, virality is not an issue that only affects the Government. It also affects individuals and companies. And we know that there was a reference made to making that process more straightforward, streamlined, easier.

I used an example during the POHA debate about a matter that was brought up by Minister Shanmugam on 13 April in a Channel NewsAsia interview where he said that you can have a situation of a company, an online falsehood has been made against it, and in four or five hours, billions of dollars could be lost. If individuals are expected to rely on the Harassment Courts for quick remedies, it is my position that we can expect a speedy response to come from the Courts. Of course, it would mean raising the Courts to be able to deal with those problems. That I can concede – that you will need Courts to respond quickly.

But it does not contradict my signing off from the Select Committee Report on an option to ensure that the response is a speedy one because I believe that the Courts can respond speedily and that the expedited timeline or an appropriate interim order can deal with the prima facie falsehood. That means the case the Government brings to the Court, the Protection from Harassment Courts is – is this a prima facie falsehood? Questions of having to sieve through evidence really turn on how real the issue is and the prima facie nature of the evidentiary threshold should deal with the issue of speed.

Mr Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

1.50 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Fake news can bring real harm.

Last year, there was this fake news that seniors can get a $30 transport top-up if they go to the community centres (CCs) before 12 November. Although the authorities had clarified, many seniors still went to the CCs with their walking stick in hand and waited there. The seniors do not know how to verify online news and they can be easily fooled by fake news. Some people also spread fake news that after people died, their CPF cannot be passed on to their inheritors in cash form. This has caused much anxiety amongst the elderly.

As for those who create such fake news, do they not have elderly parents and grandparents, too? Why do they target the seniors? I hope that after POFMA is passed, if such incidents happen again, we can prevent more seniors from being fooled and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Our racial and religious harmony can easily be harmed by fake news. Recently, in France, accounts from foreign countries have been spreading anti-minority fake news, resulting in the increase of inter-racial violence. We all know that many Asian countries also have "fake news factories" trying to do damage to our racial and religious relations.

To protect the elderly and minorities, we must quickly correct falsehoods and limit their spread. If we only rely on the Court or an independent committee, they still have to verify with the Government agencies. The speed of correction may not be that fast. Ministers will also have to stand in elections. If they abuse the law, Singaporeans will definitely make wise choices.

Lastly, many residents asked me if someone inadvertently forwards a fake story, what will happen to him. I hope that the Minister can clarify.

(In English): Sir, I support this move to I support this move to criminalise the creation and dissemination of falsehoods that would harm the public interest.

I would like to highlight two groups that are especially vulnerable to the effects of fake news – elderly and minorities.

Many elderly people have gradually become accustomed to using Facebook and WhatsApp. But they are a lot less savvy when it comes to identifying and clarifying fake news, and understanding how photographs and videos can be altered. They are inclined to take things they see on the Internet at face value, especially information circulated by their friends.

Last year, there was a hoax which claimed that all senior citizens would get a free top up of $30 on their EZ-Link cards at the community centres (CCs) on 12 November. The Ministry of Transport clarified that seniors have 10 months to apply for subsidies. But we still saw long lines at many CCs. Although we deployed staff to explain, many frail seniors still waited in line for a long time. When staff sent me pictures of elderly lining up, some with canes or wheelchairs, it really pained me.

There are also other hoaxes that make the elderly worried about their CPF savings, saying the savings would not be given in cash to their heirs. Even when they are clarified, the clarification does not reach everyone and many elderly are still unnecessarily distressed. And when the elderly are victims of fake news, for example, when elderly stallholders are accused of selling contaminated food, they might not be notified promptly or might not know how to clarify online.

I do not know why people would create fake news that targets old people. Do they not have elderly parents and grandparents too? I hope with these new laws, we can stop the news from spreading and punish such despicable people.

The other group that can be badly affected are minorities. In many countries, fake news about minorities has led to attacks against them. Often, this fake news comes from fake news factories abroad. Including in mature democracies like France, where the Roma people were attacked after rumours of them kidnapping children, which my colleague, Mr Cedric Foo mentioned just now.

We know there are fake news factories in many Asian countries, so this could happen to us too. Already, we see many hoaxes saying that halal-certified food is actually haram, spreading panic in the Muslim community. Worse rumours could arise too. How will we enforce the law when falsehoods originate from overseas? Do we have agreements with other countries and tech companies to help us investigate and prosecute these criminals?

When fake news circulates, especially if it targets the elderly and minorities, we need to make sure the clarifications reach everyone. We will save these vulnerable groups plenty of heartache and even prevent violence against them.

Therefore, I agree with the idea of the Government making a quick decision, to ask the tech companies to clarify or take down fake news. If we leave it to the Courts or a committee, they will be comprised of generalists. To determine whether something is true or false, they have to get information from the Ministries anyway.

By the time the decision is made, maybe riots will have already broken out. Certainly, the fake news would have spread far and wide.

Ministers' decisions could be challenged in Court, and they can be voted out if they make a decision that is obviously just to suppress critical opinions. Compare that to a committee that is appointed and paid by the Government, and gets most of its facts from the Government, but cannot be voted out, which one is more accountable?

My next question is, many residents have asked me, if they do not know a story is false and forwarded it, what will happen to them?

Sir, Workers' Party's Members of Parliament have made much ado about the Bill, claiming that it is an insidious attempt by the Government to deter critics. They do not seem to have read the Bill and have made a variety of misleading statements to fearmonger on the Bill.

Mr Low claims that the Bill gives the Government absolute power. He completely overlooks and fails to address what the Minister said yesterday that the Bill contains a narrower set of powers which increase oversight for the Courts. What is his basis for saying the Government is trying to increase its powers? If the Government was really as power hungry as Mr Low describes, why put forth a Bill that is more narrow in scope? People can easily and quickly bring a challenge to Court and the Court will decide on whether there is a false statement of fact. Why would a Minister expose himself to a challenge he will lose?

Mr Low also gives misleading examples to claim that the Bill has an expansive scope which will affect Singaporeans' daily lives. He says that if a Minister says that the older generation cannot accept a non-Chinese Prime Minister, this will be an opinion. But if a political opponent says the same thing, a Minister may use the Bill against that opponent.

Mr Low also suggests that the Bill may be used against comments. For example, saying that the Pioneer and Merdeka Generation Packages are to buy votes. He is completely wrong.

These examples Mr Low cited are all clear opinions. Minister for Law clarified this yesterday, both in his speech and through the list of examples he circulated.

And if the Government were to use the Bill as the Workers' Party alleges, do you think Singaporeans will take it lying down?

Mr Low should not mislead when the position in the Bill is clear. He is trying to mislead people and create fear. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr Speaker: Mr Cedric Foo.

2.01 pm

Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to answer Mr Pritam Singh's earlier question. I just want to ask him if being a Member of the Select Committee and having had the chance to read the Select Committee report and agreeing to it, specifically recommendation 12, where in the first instance, the first principle, in order to deal with it, we must deal with it with speed, in a matter of hours. So, the first part of my question to him is: does he deny that now? Does he now say that countering fake news can take much longer? Or does he still subscribe to the fact that it has to be dealt in a matter of hours?

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thought I have made that clear but I will repeat myself. Obviously, there will be instances where the response has to be dealt with within hours. But the question is whether the Select Committee report commits itself to the Executive being the decision maker. This is the key point. The Select Committee report does not commit to the Executive as the decision maker. And I think the point that needs to be re-emphasised is, there is no need for me to take my name away from any conclusion of the Select Committee report, I stand by it. But a speedy response can be foreseen, can be fathomable through another decision maker, namely the Judiciary.

Mr Speaker: Mr Foo.

Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and Mr Singh for answering and affirming that he agrees that "a matter of hours" is of utmost importance. He also said just now that he agrees that the Judiciary needs to be "bulked up" or whatever exact words were used, in order to respond in a matter of hours. And coming back to the earlier point, I am not saying that the Select Committee report made a decision or conclusion on who the decision maker must be. I agree with him on. But if the Judiciary has to be bulked up to be able to handle issues in a matter of hours as opposed to the Executive branch which is supported by 16 Ministries, about 135,000 officers with years of experience in different domains – security, economics, health, education and fake news can occur anywhere – how long does it take to bulk up the Judiciary before it can respond in a matter of hours?

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, the point that I think Mr Foo is making is that the Court needs to be bulked up. Yesterday, during the POHA Second Reading, we were informed that the process of applying against online falsehoods for individuals and companies would be a quick one and separate Courts have been set up for this for Singaporeans, for individuals and for companies. And it is in that context that I believe that a speedy response is possible through the Courts because those Courts are going to be set up by virtue of the amendments we passed under POHA.

Mr Speaker: Mr Foo, are there any new points?

Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng: Yes, probably the last engagement to give others a chance to speak. POHA is for private matters, and if somebody felt that they had been harassed, as a private individual, they will go to the Courts. I think Minister and Senior Minister of State have spoken about how to make the Courts a little more efficient and lower costs for such purposes.

POFMA that we are debating now is about public interest, it is about riots, it is about possible spread of wild fire, it is about racial disharmony. These are huge, these are public interest matters that have to be dealt with much faster than individual interest under POHA which whilst important are not as urgent as in cases under POFMA which are both important and urgent, and have to be dealt with right away. So, if it is to equip the Courts to have the same capacity, response time, experience and domain knowledge as the Executive branch, then I think it is a very far-fetched idea. I do not see how the Courts can reach that state.

Mr Speaker: Mr Perera.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh then.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, it is not my understanding that in cases of online falsehoods targeted against individuals and companies POHA is going to present a slow outlet for these individuals. That process also can be quick. If not, there would be no provisions for interim orders. So, I disagree with this idea – unless I have gotten POHA completely wrong – that individuals and companies cannot expect a fast, expeditious solution to falsehoods that have been carried against them. So, again, the Workers' Party will stick to the point and we believe that the Courts actually can respond to online falsehoods speedily.

Mr Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.

2.07 pm

Mr K Shanmugam: Thank you, Sir. Mr Singh, Recommendation 12 opens with "the Government should have the powers to swiftly disrupt the spread and influence of online falsehoods". The Government. The Government should have the powers and the objectives should be achieved as follows: provide access, limit or block exposure, disrupt the digital amplification, discredit the sources. And then, it goes to set out these capabilities should be able to apply to all relevant platforms; and it goes on to say "Legislation will be needed to achieve the above objectives. Such legislation should have the following objectives: measures will need to achieve the objective of breaking virality by being effective in a matter of hours." On the face of it, the recommendation is that the Government should have these powers. The opening words cannot be any clearer. The Government should have the powers.

Second, equally importantly, let us not argue with qualitative words – "Courts can move fast, no reason why they cannot move fast" and so on. Let us stick to the clear recommendation – "matter of hours". You are a lawyer. I have been in practice. Do you think in every case that is necessary, the Court can decide in a matter of hours? You know the process: it would have to be filed, it would have to be served. The defendant may wish to come to Court and say, "I want to argue this" which means due process. How long do you think it will take to get a duty judge? I do not know whether you have tried. But over 22 years, I have tried several times. It can take two days. If the duty judge is in a hearing, it can take up to end of the day. This Select Committee would have been mindful of all of that. It is not possible for you or for me or for anyone else in this House honestly to say that the Courts can do this in a matter of hours. That is just plain wrong. It is not possible.

So, let us stick to the Select Committee's recommendation – "in a matter of hours". Four hours, five hours. What if it is a weekend? You know how long it takes to get a duty judge? When are you going to get a duty judge? When the Courts reopen. Sometimes, you can go to his house and see him. But "matter of hours"? What if he is engaged in something else? He can only give you the time that he can and it is possible that the defendant will turn up. You cannot say all the time that it should be ex-parte. Even in ex-parte, there is such a thing as contested ex-parte. If it is a responsible or respectable party, like a platform, you could say, the platform turns up and says, "No, we want to argue this case". Due process means you must allow them to argue. That means you have to set a hearing date. How long do you think that will take?

In POHA, the process is as follows: we have set up dedicated Courts but we have not pretended that in POHA it can come within a matter of hours. It may not be possible. But private interest, in general, we think they can go and try, but we hope that it can be done in two days; in sufficiently suitable cases, hopefully a day sometimes. But there will be other times when the judges are not available. That is why this Recommendation 12, which is a critical recommendation, says, "The Government should have the powers to swiftly disrupt the spread and influence of online falsehoods". And it says, "It should be done in a way to achieve the objective of breaking virality by being effective in a matter of hours".

If anyone in this House says that you guarantee that a Court will decide every single time, within a matter of hours, when you need it, you are not telling the truth. And I will say so by looking you in the eye. The Courts will tell you that is not possible. So, let us not use words like "Courts can decide quickly". Of course, they can decide quickly. But, as I said to the Nominated Members of Parliament yesterday, what does that mean? These are qualitative words. We are talking about "hours". I have given concrete examples where things happened within a matter of hours.

For private interest, you cannot have any other way other than going to Court. We set up a dedicated set of Courts for the State Courts. We asked them to set up a separate tribunal but that does not mean that an order can be obtained within a matter of hours. We can do the same thing in the High Court but that does not mean that a Court order can be obtained within a matter of hours. You just think in terms of process. There might be times when there is no defendant and you can try and get an ex-parte, sometimes over the phone but, often, there is a platform where these things are carried; and the platform might want to be heard. Facebook, Google or somebody else.

So, I think the Workers' Party should try and clarify without using subjective terms and bringing in POHA which is quite different from POFMA – this Bill – together with the Select Committee's recommendations. Are you walking back on it? Are you saying you no longer stand by it? And if you stand by it, how does your current position make any sense because you accept that is a serious problem? You accept that something has to be done. Government must have these powers. It must be broken within a matter of hours. The only difference that I see between you and us now is who makes that initial call. And your method does not gel with what the recommendation says. So, maybe, I can hear from you.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think a number of points have been made by the Minister. First, it has to do with my position on the Committee and the recommendations per se. I do not think it is an attempt to try and wriggle around the words, "The Government should act swiftly. Legislation should be provided to the Government". POFMA is the legislation that the Government has put forward. I think the issue is really response time. I think that is the key pivot that the Government and the Workers' Party have —

Mr K Shanmugam: And that it says "The Government have the powers to swiftly disrupt" and says "This is the way it should be done."

Mr Pritam Singh: The Select Committee report – we went through several revisions of it. I was part of the team that looked at Recommendation 12 closely. I do not want to share what the deliberations of that small group were because those are confidential and I do not intend to abuse my parliamentary privilege for that purpose, but I have those emails. I do not intend to read from them. But very clearly, my decision to remove the Executive as the decision maker was made quite clear in the original draft. And I think that is the point. The point is, I believe the Select Committee had to put forth an approach on how we are going to deal with the problem, but as to the specific modality, that was something for Parliament to decide.

So, that is dealing with the Select Committee's phraseology and how the issue was put out.

Let me deal with the second set of issues that the Minister spoke about, which was about speed. Certainly, there appears to be two regimes when the Government needs to apply for an interim order to move quickly against either an individual or a company; in this case, let us say a tech company like Facebook. Yes, I would agree that if we came to a tech company I would expect them to challenge what the Government wants to do. But in that sort of situation, the fact is POFMA gives advantage to the Government. The prima facie case is something that the judge can rule upon as a matter of course. That means, the order is given but as to the arguments that have to be dealt with later, these can be dealt with accordingly.

Let me just give an example if the Minister could just bear with me. Targeted Correction order, this is clause 21, Part 4 of the Bill, is issued to the Internet intermediary that provided the Internet intermediary service by means of which the subject material has been or is being communicated in Singapore requiring it to communicate by means of that service to all end users in Singapore. And then, it goes on to say a statement, a specified statement and so forth.

We look at the identical option under POHA, for individual or company, there is a requisite standard to meet for an interim order, which is the prima facie standard. Once that standard is met, let us say by a duty judge, the question of hearing the arguments can be dealt with later. And I think this is the point which suggests to me that there is some scope for the Courts to deal with the urgent issue that the Government wants to resolve, at least in the interim, and then when it comes to the proper hearing the Government can make its case in full and the aggrieved party will have the time to respond.

Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Singh, that does not quite answer the question. On recommendation 12 and whether Executive is mentioned or not, I think we stick to the wordings here because I am also aware of those emails. And I think it is quite clear what recommendation 12 says but I do not want to put you in any sort of embarrassment on that.

Let us just deal with the point on hours. I think it is unarguable, prima facie or whatever, the starting point is for you to file and get an an attendance before a duty judge. You will accept that that is not always possible in a matter of hours. That is the first point I make.

Second point I make is this. If you serve it, and sometimes you will have to, particularly, say you decide to make the platform the defendant. And they turn up, and they say, "No. Before you make a prima facie order, we want to make an argument. We want to be heard". What happens? The Court, are you sure, will each time make a decision within a matter of hours? Assuming you can even get the judge. If the judge is in a hearing for the whole day, you get to see him at the end of the day, if he wants to see you, if he is able to see you. I think it is a simple point, Mr Singh. It is unarguable, is it not, that there will be times? You cannot guarantee that if you go down this route, you will always get it within a matter of hours. Prima facie or otherwise. That is the only point. I mean you are good enough to accept that, I think we can move on.

Mr Pritam Singh: On the first point, Minister, it is no question of an embarrassment for me. I think I am quite clear as to what I think is the appropriate position taken by the Select Committee report. Decision making – it was not explicitly stated which would be the entity and I think I want to leave it at that.

The second point I think is an important one. The first question was in a matter of hours. And I think the Minister makes a fair point in the case of the duty judge. If indeed there is only one person, then it really comes down to a question of whether that should that be increased. Should we have more duty judges? Again, it is an arguable point. The Minister may say look it is going to be quite difficult to execute in practice. I happen to think that, again, depending on how urgent the problem is, how bad the situation is, that can be dealt with.

The second point about service. It is an important point because it deals with issues of natural justice. It is an important point. Again, we look at POHA and interim orders, for example. Clause 16 says: an interim order takes effect in respect of the respondent", and this is an individual or company, "when the order is served on the respondent in such a manner as may be prescribed", but critically, (b) says, "where the Court dispenses with the service of the order, when the service of the order or the respondent is dispensed with by the Court, or at such a later time as the Court may specify". Again, it suggests to me that the regime can be dealt with to deal with the problem of a falsehood provided that prima facie threshold is met. Serious problem. Serious falsehood put out there; and the Court may decide, "Look, I think service is of a second order importance right now, we need to deal with this problem but parties have to come back before me".

Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Singh, I think let us try and get clarity. The first point is not just a question of resources. Judges have cases. It is not as if there is one judge sitting there, doing nothing else but waiting for the Government to come in and apply. There is a duty judge regularly to hear urgent cases. Week after week, the duty judge changes. Sometimes, it carries on. As I told you, there can be weekends, there can be public holidays, there can be other issues.

The simple point is neither you nor I nor anyone else can guarantee that it can be gotten in a matter of hours. I assume you have practised in this area. But if you have not, I will make that point to you.

Second, in terms of service. If it is a known platform and there is an identifiable defendant who is not a rogue party, when you go to the Court and the Court says, "Why have you not served on this party, why are they not before the Court?" What do you say? Okay, let us say we make provisions in urgent matters, we can come and get an interim order in the first place even before service. Assuming we provide for that. Then, what really happens is, each time you just go and get an ex parte order, all that the judge has is what you are giving him. And he confirms that you should get the order. Even then, after you get the order, you are going to break the virality within a matter of hours, as supposed to an immediate order by the Minister?

I think you have an insuperable problem there because of the availability of the judges. And if your point is, each time the Government wishes, it goes ex parte because it is urgent, then how is the Court substantial check other than the fact the Government puts an affidavit, explains it and says, "I think it is urgent" and the Court gives it. But my fundamental point is, are you sure it is done in a matter of hours? Are you standing here as a party and guaranteeing that every time it happens, it will be done within a matter of hours. If you say that, we will just leave it as that; if that is your position.

Mr Pritam Singh: I thank the Minister for that. I think it requires a caveat, of course. A caveat is important and that caveat is that there has to be capacity for a duty judge to be available at that time. That is the caveat.

Mr Speaker: Let us move on.

Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I would like to pose a clarification to the Law Minister. I had intended originally to pose a clarification to Mr Cedric Foo. But I think in light of the Law Minister's comments at this point, I will just pose some clarification to him. It is quite simple. Is it the position of the Law Minister and the Government that our Courts could not be sufficiently resourced, structured, if necessary a new process, a new expedited process created, if necessary a new process for assigning judges created, additional capacity created? Is it impossible? Is it inconceivable that this could be done in the future in order to issue interim prima facie decisions in urgent, time-sensitive cases under POFMA? Is that impossible by definition? By definition is that impossible in the future if we take all these steps to put in the resources to put in the process, if necessary create a special of class of judges, so on, so forth. Is that impossible by definition?

And I would add that in other jurisdictions to the best of my knowledge, and I may stand corrected, in other jurisdictions, for example, in some states in the US, it is my understanding that an arrest warrant has to be approved by a judge under certain circumstances. These arrest warrants are very time-sensitive and the judge has to make a decision on the balance of probabilities, whether to arrest the person. That is a serious matter. Whether to arrest a person in extremely time-sensitive circumstances. Sometimes, late at night the law enforcers will go and see the judge. Because that system has been created and structured and resourced in such a way that it is possible. So, that is my clarification.

Mr K Shanmugam: A number of points here. The first of which is this. Let us take the sequence, the process of these things. First, you got to draft something and file in Court. We are now talking about the Select Committee's recommendation to do something within a matter of hours. You got to draft and file. You got to put aside some time for that. After that, you must find the judge. Let us say in your scenario, we have a High Court Judge who does nothing but sits there 24/7 because it can break out anytime, and will be available as soon as the Government calls. It is technically not impossible. Of course, you can have a Judge who does nothing but this, and no other cases. Because if he is hearing a case, he cannot break the case and come and listen to you. He has to go to finish the case for the sitting, until lunch time or until the evening, depending on the scenario. Duty Judges hear their cases too. So, we are saying, if supposing something has happened and I want to stop the communication within the next two hours, do you think it is possible by going to Court?

Then, there are further factors which have further levels of uncertainty. You file, you go before a Judge and you say, "Look, Judge, it is so urgent that I am not going to serve this on Google, Facebook or whoever, wherever it is spreading. I just need an urgent order, ex parte, and then later on I will serve". Sometimes, the Judge may agree but the Judge may also disagree. Supposing he disagrees, then it takes a further length of time. The decision maker, the person who has the facts might take one view and the responsibility for dealing with that situation also rests with the Executive. Have you not known of instances where within 24 hours, there have been riots and people have been killed? Supposing the Judge says, "I think I would like to hear the other side, urgent as it is". It has happened. Urgent ex parte applications have been heard on a contested basis. Any of these are possible. The Judge could give you ex parte. But he could also ask for contested ex parte. He could ask the other side to turn up quickly. And if he does that, and the other side turns up, and then, they say, "We do not have time to file an affidavit but we want to know the basic facts before we can argue. We need until this evening; we need until tomorrow morning." Once you set up a Court process, then, you must allow for the due process.

So, my point to you, Mr Perera is, having now heard this explanation, is it your position that definitionally, it is possible, every single time, whenever we want it to be dealt with urgently, that it can be dealt with urgently, in a matter of hours? Is that your position?

Mr Speaker: Mr Perera.

Mr Leon Perera: I thank the Law Minister for his explanation. And I think that there are a number of points that he made which relate to judicial capacity, for want of a better term, and process. I would imagine that, based on what the Law Minister has said, he can envisage, that the necessary capacity can be created to deal with such a caseload, based on what Law Minister said.

Mr K Shanmugam: Possible, if the Judge does nothing else but waits for the applications. That was what I said.

Mr Leon Perera: Yes. So, I would take it that necessary capacity can be created. We can create a special class of Courts, duty Judges. Capacity is a question of resource planning. So, with sufficient resources applied, necessary capacity can be created.

Next, there is an issue of process. And I think the Law Minister alluded to the fact that while the Government will have to word the submission, even an ex parte submission to the Court, and that is time consuming, and while this is going on, the clock is ticking away and the falsehood is viralising and so on. But within the Ministry, or the Statutory Board or agency, the civil servants also have to word the submission to the Minister or communicate with the Minister. Can we not create a process whereby the communication, the form and the format of communication between the civil servant and the Minister, is very similar to the form and format of communication between the Government and the Court in those very time-sensitive cases, to obtain an initial prima facie decision?

So, my point there is that I think, at the level of process, a process can be created to minimise the time lag from Ministry to Court. I would put it to the Minister that a process can be created in that way. And I think we have addressed the issue of capacity and we have addressed the issue of process. The Minister has been talking about the current situation, right now, with the capacity we have and the process we have. If we can add more resources and capacity, and we change the process to make it expedited to arrive at that prima facie decision, to stop the viralisation, I would put it to the Law Minister that that is perfectly conceivable.

And I also want to address the other point that the Minister made, that in some cases, the Judge will not agree. That is precisely the point. In some cases, the Judge will not agree. If the Judge feels that he is being asked to make a prima facie decision, but he is looking at it on a balance of probabilities and he feels that the Executive is over-reaching or the Executive is abusing its power, so he may not agree in that case. And that is precisely the value of the check.

Mr K Shanmugam: I would ask Mr Perera not to put words in my mouth. When I said "not agree", it may be because he says, "I want to hear what the other side has got to say". So, my point to Mr Perera is: therefore, we can take it, and it will be very simple, can I take it your position is that, definitionally, every single time it is necessary to make a decision, you believe that the Courts can be used to make a decision to break the virality within a matter of hours; every single time, when it is necessary to do so? Is that your Party's position? Is that your position? If it is yes, yes. If it is no, no. That is all. It will be very good to clarify that.

Mr Leon Perera: If the Courts are sufficiently structured and resourced and the process is defined to enable that to happen, then the answer is yes.

Mr K Shanmugam: And you believe that that can be done by simply putting some submission to the Court? Is that it, whatever the civil servant submits to the Minister, can simply be submitted to the Court?

Mr Leon Perera: What I am saying to the hon Minister is that a simplified process can be created to absolutely minimise the lead time between Minister and Court to get a decision. There is a certain amount of lead time, in any case, for the internal conversation between civil servants and Ministers in such cases. What we are talking about is the additional lead time between the Minister and the Court to get that decision to break the virality. So, I would put it to the Minister that a process can be defined that is very simplified to minimise that lead time.

Mr K Shanmugam: Yes. I have got the clarifications I needed, Sir. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. Mr Leon Perera, your speech.

2.35 pm

Mr Leon Perera: Mr Speaker, Sir, all Members in this House and both the Workers' Party and the People's Action Party agree that fake online news is a danger that modern society must address. We have seen what happens elsewhere when falsehood fans sectarian hatred, swing elections and harmed national security. We need tools to limit the reach of truly dangerous falsehoods spread by malicious actors.

But while we agree on the goal, the Workers' Party and the People's Action Party disagree about the means to achieve that goal. We disagree because we look ahead to the future of this country after this Bill is passed and we see a country where too much power is vested in the hands of any and every Minister. We see a country where free speech debate and thinking could become stifled, especially on the very important matters of public policy and politics on which so much health in national life turns. We disagree because the cure that the PAP Government has placed in front of us could lead to outcomes worse than the disease. As the hon Member Mr Pritam Singh said, section 22 of POFMA defines falsehoods as statements of facts that are false or misleading, not false and misleading. So, a misleading statement can be deemed false by a Minister by virtue of omission of facts.

Sir, in political, intellectual, legal, academic public debate, individuals often present facts that support their arguments and devote less time and space to facts that tend to support the opposite argument. This has been the case for centuries.

Yet, section 2 suggests that a particular collection of facts may be construed as misleading if the "opposite facts" as it were, are not given what the Minister thinks its sufficient weight. The same Minister may not correct statements made by the Government or its supporters that present mainly their facts as it were.

How do we deal with statements like this, for example; "HDB flats are more like rental flats than owned assets since lessees lack strata titles. The HDB controls many of aspects of what you can do with your flat and the value declines over the long-term towards zero dollars at the end of 99 years".

Sir, Minister Lawrence Wong denounced a similar notion as legally and factually wrong. Would such a view be deemed subject to a Correction Order under POFMA?

On the POFMA, a falsehood can be deemed grave enough to warrant correction or penalty for being a misleading collection of facts, even if it does not contain one single false statement of fact. If this wide definition of misleading facts is maintained, the Courts should at least be the first arbiter of truth in respect of formulations such as this one, rather than Ministers who have and will be seen to have their own political interest, a point I will come back to.

Next, section 4 sets out various criteria by which false statements are deemed harmful to the public interest. However, the language lacks any reference to a real risk threshold. In section 4, it would seem that anything that impinges on national security, public health, public finances and so on, in however microscopic or indirect manner, would be upheld as vulnerable to corrections or penalties. The language of section 4 states expedient and necessary. But expedient and necessary for what? To what degree of harm to those things?

Should section 4 not be worded to define public interest with reference to a real risk posed to the things described? In lieu of this, any statement having however minor an impact on the things described, would qualify as correctable. How could meaningful judicial review thus operate? And this is setting aside section 17, Part 5 circumscription of the scope of what has been said will be fast and cheap POFMA High Court appeals to exclude consideration of the degree to which public interest is impacted, a point which my colleague Mr Dennis Tan and which my Party Chairman Ms Sylvia Lim will expand on. This lack of a threshold of significance stretches the risk of abuse of POFMA powers to correct matters which have a very a minor impact on the public interest.

Next, my colleagues have spoken about the chilling effect POFMA may have on free speech. This is not political point-scoring. It is by virtue of this Bill's peculiar cocktail of three things, of section 2, defining what the Minister deems a misleading presentation of facts, not only false claims of facts, as correctable. That is one. Two, section 4F defining harmful falsehoods as including those that diminish confidence in the Government. And thirdly, section 6, which establishes Ministers as the decision makers of truth and falsehoods in the first instance. It is through the combination of these three aspects of POFMA that this Bill is likely to chill free speech and debate about the Government, policies and politics, particularly, expressions of views that run counter to the Government narrative.

Why do I say this? Look ahead to the future. Correction and take-down orders could damage, if not destroy reputations and careers, for journalists, activists, academics, public intellectuals, politicians, professionals of various kinds. In fact, for many, many citizens. If your post becomes subject to such orders, what would your employers think, your lecturers and tutors, your professional colleagues, your friends, your spouse, your business associates, partners and customers? When we bring in the risk of massive fines and lengthy jail time under section 7 for a single offence of "having reason to believe" that one statement is false or harmful as POFMA defines it, which includes undermining confidence in the Government, and with no threshold of significant impact on public interest specified in the law, the risk, Mr Speaker, Sir, is not just a chilling free speech, but of hurling it into an industrial freezer.

By free speech here, I refer particularly to public speech regarding policies and politics that may contain criticisms of the government of the day or the ruling party.

I note in passing that for offshore sponsors of deliberate online falsehoods like state actors or offshore extremists or sectarian groups, it would be difficult, if not, impossible to subject them to these criminal penalties. The burden of these penalties and the fear they generate will fall primarily on domestic actors, on Singaporeans.

Of course, penalties for harmful falsehoods are necessary. I want to be clear about that. But when the penalties are severe and attached to language like that in sections 2 and 4 and with Ministers as the first arbiters of truth, the prospect of chilling public political debate is very real.

What would Singapore look like if most Singaporeans avoid commenting publicly in ways that may be seen as critical of the Government and its narrative? What may take hold is self-censorship and the restriction of online comments in favour of verbal conversations amongst friends or talks held amongst small groups. And the reason for this is clear to see. Many citizens will not have the stomach to risk a Correction order or a criminal charge even if they are confident about their facts as many will not want to take on the effort, time, cost and risk entailed by a legal appeal, let alone a full blown judicial review action. Under POFMA, the burden of proof falls on the person saying something, not the Government for saying that something was false. Many will choose not to take up that burden and simply not speak up.

Next, Sir, section 11 raises a related issue. Its language regarding Correction statements is broad. A correction statement must be worded "in the specified form and manner" specified by the Government. Is there any requirement that Correction statements be as concise, factual, reasonable and non-pejorative as possible? Where is the requirement of proportionality in wording Correction statements?

Next, look ahead to the future. A price we pay for this Bill may be to live in a country where alternative media activists and journalists are afraid to bring certain information to light, possibly information about lapses, abuses, scandals or corruption, because they need to protect people who have shared information confidentially but are too afraid to be named.

In this case, under section 7, potentially, even the expression of public suspicion on the publishing of information from confidential sources by reputable journalists and writers using accepted, investigative and journalistic methodologies, may attract criminal penalties. The POFMA Bill, as it stands, lacks a public interest defence, something the UK is reportedly considering including in its eventual fake news law. There should be a public interest defence whereby a statement that was false, according to the strict standards of POFMA, that is, could have been deemed misleading at the time that it was made, may still not be an offence, or would be a far smaller class of offence carrying smaller penalties if made in good faith using a defensible process and to serve the greater public interest.

Sir, let us look ahead to the post-POFMA future. Will practitioners in the media industry and academia err on the side of caution?

Does that help Singapore's reputation as the global business, R&D and knowledge hub? Will scientists and public health professionals with a different view from the Government on the public health impact of e-cigarettes, for example, hesitate to publish clinical research showing harm reduction to conform smokers for e-cigarettes out of fear, that they may be subject to Correction order because they did not also publish in the same statement facts about how many young first time smokers are taking out e-cigarettes in the US and hence, that research will be deemed a misleading collection of true statements.

As a result, will they refrain from publishing such facts due to the personal consequences they will have to face? How does the impoverishment of policy debate that may ensue from that help the formation of good policies? How do we mitigate the risks that the academics and the media may come to see a need to soft launch their ideas before publication with Government officers to minimise the risk of POFMA action? Or worse yet, simply self-censor or water down outputs that disagree with the Government's narrative and hence may be deemed to undermined confidence in the Government under section 4.

Next, let us look ahead to the future post-POFMA in respect of politics. Singapore will be a country where any Minister can determine in the first instance what is truth and false – in the first instance. Post-POFMA, ours will be a country where Ministers with the political interest they are seen to have, can correct statements they deem misleading. But the very same Ministers will not be subject to the stringent, immediate and broad strictures of the POFMA law. Ministers and Government spokespersons can say what they want including misleading statements with a partisan political character.

What is the restraint on the Government here? Can victims of possible Government falsehoods go to the POHA Courts? Evidently, not. They can sue for defamation, but again, how many would do that? Would defamation apply to statements made by Ministries and agencies as opposed to Ministers? How long would that take? What if a falsehood perpetrated by a government affects the outcome of an election? Would a positive defamation verdict for a victim of government fake news after the election is help?

Section 4F describes diminution of confidence in the Government as one definition for falsehood being harmful to the public interest, a feature of this law that is different from most similar fake news laws or draft laws in other countries. Is vesting powers this broad in the Government of the day, from now to when this law is repealed, if ever that day comes, the responsible thing to do for future generations of Singaporeans?

What if a rouge government uses these powers to stifle criticism, block the circulation of embarrassing information about lapses, abuses or corruption, perpetuate fear and entrench itself in power? What if such a rouge government exploited the reluctance of many Singaporeans to sue the Singapore Government in Court to its advantage? What if such a government exploited the lack of a public interest defence to suppress genuine and responsible investigative journalism.

Do we serve future generations of Singaporeans by passing such a law and passing into the hands of the government of the day, such a powerful weapon not knowing how it might be used?

When asked about the possibility of a future rogue government abusing POFMA, the Law Minister said and I quote, "I cannot vouch for how a future government will act." Some would say, and the Law Minister also said in the same interview, I am not taking it out of context, that a rogue government or a Minister who abuses their POFMA powers will be held to account in elections. A number of PAP Members of this House have made a great deal of this point.

But Mr Speaker, Sir, this ignores the fact that a rogue government can precisely use POFMA powers to stop voters from learning negative information about their actions which could be a factor in those very elections. The powers can be used to partly insulate against electoral accountability. To say Parliament is a check against abuse is neither here nor there. The abuse may affect the composition of the Parliament itself.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this argument is, to a large extent, circular.

Some might say that chilling free speech a little is the right price to pay for preventing foreign powers, extremist and opportunist from destroying our communal harmony or even our independence as a country. Sir, we recognise the need for a surgical tool to fight fake news, which is why my Party Leader, Mr Pritam Singh, argued for an alternative regime, a regime with a broad definitions and powers in POFMA are curtailed by virtue of the Government requiring Judges to approve Correction Orders at the point of implementation, which is closer to one aspect of the model being debated and implemented in France. Resources can be provided to ensure that duty Judges provide fast, prima facie decisions in time-sensitive cases. The Court should be the first arbiter and not the final arbiter. Sir, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This Bill may reduce the reporting of information seen to be critical of the Government. It can also be misused by an irresponsible government, if Ministers who may be seen to have their own political agenda issue correction directions that are written in a way that will embarrass their critics, or they may even commence actions to take down the news that was published as well as stop the circulation of information that can embarrass the Government.

Sir, under this law, the Government decides whether a particular item of news is considered to be false or otherwise, and it is the responsibility of the person who issued the statement to prove that it is not false, and this must be done in Court.

The Workers' Party requests for a fake news law that places the responsibility of proving falsehoods on the Government, and not the person who issued the statement. The Courts must be the first arbiter in making the decision, and the Ministers should not be given dangerous powers, such as those stated in this Bill; powers that can be misused by an irresponsible government to retain their power.

Sir, we in the Workers' Party do not oppose for the sake of opposing. But we oppose when we see something that does not support elements of the national interest like this Bill.

(In English): And in conclusion, Sir, purging destructive falsehoods from the public square is the right thing to do. But this Bill is a cure worse than the disease. When we look ahead post-POFMA, we see a country where only the rich and brave may dare to speak up. In time, the chill on free political speech may also affect our young people in our schools and higher education institutes. Will they come to self-censor their thoughts and their expressions to align with the Government's narrative? Will they internalise the fear of not diminishing confidence in the Government as section 4F of POFMA details? What will this mean for Singaporeans becoming independent thinkers who can navigate a world of disruption? Bear in mind what the hon Member Prof Lim Sun Sun said about how, among the general public, people are now using POFMA as a verb, "I will POFMA you".

Sir, the problem of fake news needs a surgical tool welded by objective, non-conflicted surgeons to strike at the diseased organ and not the healthy limbs. But this Bill is not a carefully crafted tool, it is a blunt weapon, handed to a conflicted surgeon, able to cause a great deal of collateral damage to the democratic body politik in this country. The Bill as it stands, needs a radical overhaul, not just minor tweaks. We do not oppose for the sake of opposing. But we do oppose when it is right for Singapore and this is one such time. Thank you, Sir.

2.55 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, with the prevalent use of the Internet and social media, massive amounts of information are being shared online, particularly among the young. On one hand, the free flow of information is a form of knowledge democracy; on the other hand, due to the low or non-existent barrier to online participation, falsehoods and misinformation are pervasive. The online space has remained unregulated for a long time. Cases of how the Internet has been manipulated to gain profit, cause racial and religious disputes, incite harm and cast doubts on public institutions abound.

The consequences for us as a nation would be dire if we leave such a situation unchecked. We will have difficulty telling the truth from online falsehoods, affecting our ability to make informed choices and decisions. We have already seen how online abuse and misinformation had led to injuries and deaths in other countries, spurring them to take action.

Global sentiment is shifting as governments around the world now realise that regulation of the Internet space is needed. Germany had enacted the Network Enforcement Act which took effect this year. France passed the Law Against the Manipulation of Information last November. The United Kingdom is now holding an open public consultation on the Online Harms White Paper that sets out the government’s plans for measures to keep users safe online. We, too, need urgent and comprehensive measures to address the menace of online falsehoods and manipulation.

Even tech companies now acknowledge that there is room for greater government intervention as they cannot be dealing with these problems themselves. I am very concerned about the impact of online falsehoods and fake analyses on our young. We must teach them how to discern truth from lies, how to analyse information they read online and how to think critically. Values are ingrained in people from a very young age. Hence, from young, we must teach them fundamental values which transcend religious and racial differences, such as mutual respect and tolerance, integrity, justice and fairness, kindness and empathy. If they are taught well, they will be inoculated against anything which violates basic human rights and values.

For parents, they will have to develop media literacy themselves and be able to discern facts from online falsehoods, so that they can have meaningful conversations with their children. These conversations have to be consistent and on-going. Dialogues must remain open between children and parents, so that our younger generation can be groomed into a people who can think critically and independently.

Our education system must be constantly updated in methods to teach the younger generation media literacy in a fast evolving sector and equip them with the necessary skills. I am pleased to note that research-based assignments are very common in schools now. Teachers can engage students through these projects to examine various sources of information. Students learn how to determine which sources are credible and which are not. They are exposed to questions and frameworks where they can apply themselves and determine in each case, if information is true or false. In this sense, our education system is forward-looking in preparing our young for the future.

There is also a need to enhance digital literacy for the elderly as they may be a vulnerable group that is susceptible to fake news. Unlike the young, they may be less familiar with technology and the dangers that are lurking in the online space. I understand that the Government has introduced some programmes and initiatives, such as the Silver InfoComm. IMDA has developed a set of customised curriculum to increase infocomm literacy among seniors aged 50 and above. Silver Infocomm Junctions are senior-friendly learning hubs that offer affordable infocomm training and customized courses. These are encouraging steps forward to enhance digital literacy among senior citizens.

The Bill provides measures to mitigate the impact and harm caused by online falsehoods. It would be better if the abuse of these platforms can be prevented in the first place. I therefore welcome the upstream regulation of technology companies through the inclusion of Codes of Practice, which will go a long way to ensure a clean online space. I sincerely hope that tech companies will cooperate and work closely with our Government so that Singaporeans will feel safe and have greater confidence when using their services. I would like to ask the Minister what is the process for developing the obligations in the Codes of Practice? Will stakeholders be consulted on how the obligations should be framed? Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Bill provides measures to mitigate the impact and harm caused by online falsehoods. It would be better if the abuse of these platforms can be prevented in the first place. I, therefore, welcome the upstream regulation of technology companies through the inclusion of Codes of Practice, which will go a long way to ensure a clean online space. I sincerely hope that tech companies will cooperate and work closely with our Government so that Singaporeans will feel safe and have greater confidence when using their services. I would like to ask the Minister what is the process for developing the obligations in the Codes of Practice? Will stakeholders be consulted on how the obligations should be framed?

(In English): In conclusion, we need continuous efforts to keep our Internet space safe for all Singaporeans and I am confident that the Government will continue to do more to educate our young and the elderly on the dangers of fake news and what they can do to protect themselves and their loved ones. I support the Bill.

3.02 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Yesterday, I listened to the speech of the hon Mr Low Thia Khiang. He accepts that online fake news brings harm to the society and must be curbed.

He also accepts that the Court can act as an arbiter of fake news, although he is of the opinion that it should be decided by the Court instead of the Minister. Despite the differences, they are the same. Because the Court has the final ruling.

The focus of today's Bill is on information falsifiers who disseminate false information online with the intention of causing harm, rather than the responsible and constructive network users.

It has been said that good people will gravitate towards doing good and the bad towards evil. Most people have a natural understanding of fairness and justice. Although Mr Low’s worries can be understood, he does not need to worry too much unnecessarily.

Each of us has received interesting information forwarded by friends. I also often remind myself that for the information which is questionable and cannot be verified, when forwarding, I also alert the other party that the information may be false and cannot be substantiated. Everyone can develop this habit, so that they can have better peace of mind.

Although the Ministers have the power to make a clarification or take down a post, they are not likely to abuse this power and make decisions that violate their credibility and abandon the public’s trust. At the same time, we will allow freedom of speech to flourish, and it can also enhance the credibility of the network platforms and maintain users' confidence in the platforms.

I want to remind everyone that everyone could be a victim of fake news. Do not forget that users on some popular online platforms do not need real-name registration. In other words, some people can open up thousands or even tens of thousands of fake accounts, men pretending to be women, women pretending to be men, elderly pretending to be young and young pretending to be elderly.

This is also why online fraud cases are constantly emerging. I had encountered a resident asking for help. His relatives’ child, impersonating the mother, set up an account to vilify the religious beliefs of others and provoke hatred.

Recently, the US also has to legislate to control fake news, especially deepfake technology that allows people to combine images. By attaching former US President Obama's face to another person and then making a false statement, it is possible to mislead the audience to think that Obama is speaking. If those with bad intentions can send out false information using such technology to impersonate the US president or the presidents of other countries about launching a nuclear bomb to a certain country, the consequences would be unimaginable.

I think these platforms should use real-name registration systems to allow netizens to register accounts for effective control. As the saying goes, upright people with nothing to hide do not do things secretly, so we should encourage a constructive and responsible platform for free speech, instead of using these platforms to put other people down and create social unrest under the banner of freedom of expression.

We are all familiar with the traditional game "pass the message". In the process, it is not difficult to find out that when the message reaches the last person, the original text from the first person has been distorted. It is not hard to find that some people, in order to add emphasis and persuade others, add bits and pieces to the message, and a real message could become a false message. I have a suggestion here. If you cannot determine the authenticity of the information, you can attach a disclaimer clause to remind the other party that you cannot research or verify the information, so that the other party can also be vigilant.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, the introduction of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill as another crucial step to fortify our financial and economic stability.

As we all know, financial systems are particularly sensitive to market rumours and online falsehoods. This vulnerability can have devastating consequences for individuals, for companies and for our entire economy. There is a need to act quickly and decisively to protect our financial system.

Allow me to share a couple of examples. In June 2017, a false post on 4Chan claimed that the founder of cryptocurrency had died in a car crash. The post led to a crash in the price of Ethereum and US$4 billion was wiped out in just five hours. To prove that it was all fake news, Buterin had to copy some data linked to the latest block mined on the Ethereum blockchain on a piece of paper, took a selfie with it and post this photo on Twitter.

During the Financial Crisis in 2007 to 2008, there were rumours that the Bank of East Asia was in financial trouble, leading to thousands of panicked depositors queuing outside the bank's branches to withdraw their savings. Regardless of the actual financial health of a bank, in the event of a bank run, when a large number of customers withdraw their deposits simultaneously, even a healthy bank could become insolvent. In turn, its collapse could potentially lead to other bank runs, and like a fast-spreading virus, soon cripple an entire financial eco-system.

Singapore’s financial markets are certainly not immune to such incidents. Thus, any measures to counter falsehoods must be fast and decisive. Otherwise, opportunistic actors will be able to use falsehoods to cause panic, create instability and erode confidence in our financial infrastructure. Any delay may ultimately cause severe harm to ordinary Singaporeans, some of whom may see their life savings wiped out in a matter of hours.

Hence, I do not support measures which will hamper the ability of our Ministers to react quickly to clamp down on online falsehoods. Some have argued that applications to remove articles or news should be first made to a court or independent party. Enormous damage, some of which may be irreversible, would have occurred over those precious hours and days of delay – damage which the perpetrators do not have to be responsible for. The onus should be on the parties making claims online to present the facts and evidence to support their assertions instead. Hence, I think we should consider allowing class action suits brought against service providers by the victims themselves harmed by tech companies which fail to rectify or take down fake news.

Of course, there is another angle which we should consider. While falsehoods by malicious actors can have a serious impact on the financial markets, is it possible that a mistaken exercise of the powers under this Bill may also have a serious impact on the financial markets? Would the Minister share how the Government will mitigate the risk of making such mistakes? I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Dr Intan.

3.12 pm

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I have a clarification.

Mr Speaker: Yes, Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: I heard Member Mr Gan saying something in Mandarin about what I said is similar to what is provided in the Bill – 异曲同工，我听不清楚，你可以再说一遍吗？I am not clear what he said about different views but the same objective.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh: Because, ultimately, the Court will still be the one that can decide. Even though it is a matter of sequence as what you pointed out. I know the Workers' Party's argument is that you would prefer the Court to decide. But do not forget, the Minister's decision still can be challenged; anyone can still go to Court and challenge.

Mr Speaker: Mr Low.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: In Mandarin, Sir.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] So, Member Mr Gan meant to say that although the Minister has the decision-making power under this Bill, you can still go to Court to challenge the decision. But the Workers' Party believes that if there are any complaints, the Minister should lodge a complaint with the Courts and let the Courts decide. Do you believe that the two approaches achieve the same objective? No, it is not achieving the same objective. Let me explain why.

Under the Bill, the Minister decides what is falsehood and what action to take. If the affected party disagrees, he can go to Court to appeal and let the Court decide. But this is like executing someone first and then allowing him to appeal later. The person would have been executed already, what is the point of making an appeal when he is already dead?

Mr Gan Thiam Poh: (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Let us not forget that this is falsehood. When the Minister issues a take-down order, he will explain his action. If you disagree, you can go to the Courts and let the Court decides.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] First and foremost, you must follow the Minister's decision to take down the message, you cannot go to Court. According to this Bill, you must comply with the Minister's order. Otherwise, you will be charged. It is different from the situation where the Minister goes to Court first and requests for the information to be taken down, and you are given a chance to state your reasons and defend yourself in Court. Under this Bill, there is no room for you to defend your case. You must first obey the Minister’s order, then go to Court. So, it is like executing first and appealing later.

Mr Speaker: Are there any new points to be made, if not, we move on.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh: (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I think it is not possible for the Minister to go against public opinion and risk his credibility by doing this. If you think that you are right, you can still lodge an appeal.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] You assume that the Minister will not do this, but is your assumption correct? It may be correct now, but will it be correct in the future? Even the Minister cannot guarantee that, he said he cannot be sure that future governments will not abuse their power. Can you be sure?

Mr Speaker: Dr Intan.

3.15 pm

Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Bill.It is a timely and important Bill that has garnered much interest and debate both in and outside of this Chamber. I understand the need for the POFM Act and in essence, I support this Bill. Please allow me to first speak in Malay on the Bill.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the need for proper public education on the impact of fake news and falsehoods from online sources cannot be understated. With easy access to online information sources, we may not always be able to distinguish between information that is true and accurate and that which is not.

Although some may argue that this Bill will limit freedom of expression and access to information, not having this Bill will also curtail certain liberties, such as personal freedom or the right to a fair trial, such as when one has been wrongly accused and judged unfairly in the court of public opinion, and having many people who often exaggerate the actual situation.

Hence, comprehensive and continual public education is necessary, including the education of our young, starting at home and in schools. The need for our people and for our young to be media and information literate is all the more important.

Hence, I support current initiatives to do so, such as the National Library Board's SURE (Source, Understand, Research, Evaluate) Programme, the MDA's Silver Infocomm Junctions and the National Information and Media Literacy Framework by the Ministry of Communications and Information.

I did my doctorate research in information and media literacy, and I completed my work more than a decade ago. I look forward to contributing my experience in this area as a Member of MCI’s Digital Readiness Council Steering Committee.

Mr Speaker, please allow me to continue in English.

(In English): Mr Speaker, while I will not speak on specific clauses of this Bill, I wish to speak on the Bill in general in my capacity as an academic and faculty member in one of our local Autonomous Universities.

Substantial discussions have been made in the academic circle on the impact of this Bill, once enacted, on academic freedom.

If I may loosely quote the definition of Academic Freedom from Brittanica: "Academic freedom, is the freedom of teachers and students to teach, study, and pursue knowledge and research, and without unreasonable interference or restriction from current laws, institutional regulations, or public pressure."

Academic freedom is highly valued by academics because it allows us to carry out our research work, ask questions, collect relevant data, write and share our opinions, and critique freely and openly, without fear or favour. It is essentially the lifeblood of academia and research work.

Hence, I fully understand the concerns among my fellow academics on the impact of the POFMA on academic freedom.

There have been, and will continue to be, instances where the work or paper we publish may contain some "statements of facts" which may be deemed to be false, and which may contradict data available or shared by Government Ministries or agencies.

Let me illustrate with an example – the issue of discrimination – whether in schools, the workplace or in Public Services.

Current data by Government Ministries, such as MOE or MOM, may show that there is little to no incidents of discrimination in schools or workplaces. Even if there are, swift and decisive actions are taken to quell such instances of discrimination and allow current laws to deal with the perpetrators. The numbers may be small and the incidents may appear well under control. However, we must recognise that these numbers are only based on those reported. There are incidents and instances that go unreported. Hence, the data available may not always reflect what is real and what is experienced.

Research studies conducted by academics, that deep dive into the psyches and experiences of individuals – not just through quantitative data or quantifiable information – but through rich qualitative data, such as engaged interviews and discussions, observations, ethnography, phenomenological approaches or through the use of grounded theories – have usually revealed much more than what quantitative data collection methods are able to show.

There are times where these much richer qualitative data may counter or even dispute quantitative data that is much more easily and quickly reported or captured, but which only scratch the surface of most people’s psyches or experiences when it comes to complex issues such as discrimination, for example.

As a result, these academics or researchers who then publish their work and qualitative data which may counter or dispute the data owned and shared by Government Ministries or agencies – do we then conclude these academics or researchers as having published "false statements of facts" because they do not support the data or facts owned and shared by the Government Ministries or agencies?

Illustrating yet another example – we may have an academic or researcher who publish their work where because of the research methods employed or because of the statistical modelling tools applied, the data generated may not be the same as that owned or shared by the Government Ministries or agencies – do we then also conclude these academics or researchers have published "false statements of facts"?

To what extent will POFMA allow academic freedom to continue to exist?

Having argued for academic freedom, I must also put forth the following argument. That Academic freedom cannot exist without academic integrity.

What is academic integrity? It is essentially the moral code or ethical policy of academia – a term coined by Don McCabe. Academic integrity includes the avoidance of cheating or plagiarism; ensuring honesty and rigour in academic research and publishing.

This means that the work we publish must be based on data that has been honestly and rigorously collected without tampering for any specific agendas or purposes.

And in upholding academic integrity, we academics and researchers need to ensure that we do not propagate false information. To elaborate, there is a need to ensure we do not propagate disinformation or misinformation – both referring to false information.

Disinformation is known false information that is deliberately spread or propagated so as to deceive others.

Misinformation, on the other hand, is a little bit more difficult to determine. While misinformation also propagates false news or information, often times, people who propagate misinformation may not always realise the news or information is false, hence the propagation of false information may not always be deliberate – just misinformed.

Hence, there may be instances where false information is propagated without the deliberate intent to stir controversy or prejudice public opinion.

Here if I may address the point raised by the hon Member Leon Perera. Many academics that I know are not worried about the curtailment of academic freedom from this Bill. We are confident that as long as you practise academic integrity and are able to support our academic or research arguments with data, we will still have academic freedom to carry on our academic research work and still publish our work. I believe this Bill is not a life sentence for academics.

Nonetheless, in light of the above arguments, may I seek Minister’s assurance, for the record, that academics and researchers can continue to enjoy academic freedom as long as they demonstrate academic integrity in our work or publications, and that we will not always need to make appeals for our work that may discuss data or information that may run counter or even dispute facts or data owned or shared by Government Ministries or agencies?

In addition, may I suggest that an Academic and Research Advisory Panel be set up to review academic or research work or publications that may be deemed to publish "false statements of facts". This may be similar to the Singapore Medical Council that reviews medical practices and practitioners. The purpose of the Academic and Research Advisory Panel is to have oversight and decide on academic or research work or publications that would otherwise need to be put up as appeals to the Courts. Hence, long-drawn court appeals that may result in high costs or extended appeal durations, can be avoided.

While I understand that academic and research work and publications can traverse a wide array of disciplines, the Academic and Research Advisory Panel is meant to provide general oversight and counsel on matters related to academia or research work and publications.

Specific Subject Matter Expert Committees can be convened to preside over academic or research work or publications in specific areas or disciplines. I also do understand that having the proposed Academic and Research Advisory Panel which provides general oversight and counsel on matters related to academic or research work or publications or even this Specific Subject Matter Expert Committees to preside over academic or research work or publications in specific disciplines may both require much time for deliberation and review and which may be an expense to speed and efficiency compared to a directive decided by the Minister. However, efficiency and speed alone should not be our only goal. There must also be vigour and objectivity.

Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the concerns and suggestions I have raised, I support the Bill.

3.25 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party is not denying the problem of misinformation nor that there is a real risk of the public being misled, especially in the digital age. The concerns ranged from the creation of bots to spread disinformation, profiting from knowingly spreading falsehoods and possible interference in elections by external state's sponsored actors.

That said, the Bill before the House to tackle online falsehoods has generated alarm and strong concern. My Party's colleagues before me argued some of the key objections of the Workers' Party that compelled us to reject the Bill.

One such key objection is that the Bill entrusts the job of gate-keeping truths to ministers and their alternate authorities while part of the Executive Government and would be making certain decisions as interested persons rather than neutral arbiters.

During a constituency event over the weekend, some residents expressed to me that when POFMA is passed, they would likely be very, very careful about what they posed online and about private messages they send through their phones. Thus, when I saw The Straits Times opinion piece of Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong on 6 May, I was struck by the headline which read "that only a small group was crying wolf". I know that his intention in writing that piece was specifically to respond to the Asia Internet Coalition. But as he himself explained yesterday, the Bill before the House is platform neutral and will apply to communications on closed platforms such as messaging groups. Anyone who uses a mobile phone can fall foul of the Bill.

Some Nominated Members have proposed amendments to the Bill in Committee. The amendments seem to accept the powers being given to Ministers to be the arbiters of truth and public interest but attempt to scope them. The amendments also asked for more transparency and for an independent advisory council. While I appreciate their intention and efforts to try to mitigate the dangers of the Bill, the Workers' Party's objections are more fundamental and require us to reject the Bill.

For my part, I will focus my speech on the following concerns: one, the limited role of the courts under POFMA; and two, why POFMA may endanger the national interest.

First, limited role of the Courts. The Workers' Party Secretary-General Member of Parliament Pritam Singh had earlier set out why the Party believes that the POFMA powers to issue directions should be vested in the Courts rather than Ministers. The Government on its part has been stressing that Ministers are circumscribed by an appeals process and judicial oversight. It is important to examine the details of this.

First, let us look at appeals. Appeals are basically requests to re-look at the original decision on the merits to decide if the decision was right or wrong. Under what circumstances can appeals be made to the High Court?

The Bill has restricted the grounds of appeals against minister's directions. Under clause 17(5), for example, it is provided that the High Court may only set aside a Part 3 Direction on any of the following grounds on an appeal: (a) that the person did not communicate in Singapore the subject statement; (b) that the subject statement is not a statement or is a true statement of fact; or (c) that it is not technically possible to comply with the direction. These are the only three grounds on which the High Court can set aside the Minister's Directions.

The burden of proof falls to the individuals the proof that his statement was true. This is potentially very onerous due to information asymmetry between the Government and individuals, a point that I shall return to later.

The appeal to the Courts is thus very tightly scoped. The High Court cannot inquire into the merits of the decision whether in the court's view the decision should have been made in that way. On an appeal, the Court, for example, cannot ask important questions such as: (a) Is the Minister over-reacting? (b) Did the direction impose obligations on the communicator which are excessively onerous or harsh? (c) Does the public interest require the Direction to be issued?

Sir, the Government has argued that the Courts can look in fact into proportionality and into the question of public interest. The argument as I understand it is that these matters can be looked into under the usual judicial review route. So, let us look at judicial review.

I agree that POFMA does not carry a clause ousting judicial review of Ministers' decisions, so judicial review exists. But what does judicial review mean?

First, judicial review is a public law remedy which requires the individual to take up a separate legal action against the Government usually by suing the Attorney-General as the Government representative. In order to do this, the person must first apply for leave of permission from the Court to commence a judicial review. If leave is obtained, the judicial review application can then be filed. These steps will take time. Two sets of legal costs will thus be incurred. The litigant will also be facing the formidable Attorney-General's Chambers with limitless resources to defend the Government. There was no mention by the Minister yesterday that the judicial review process will be made simpler or cheaper.

Secondly, in a judicial review, the Court is not looking into whether the Minister's decision is right or wrong. The purpose of judicial review is to determine if the Minister's decision is legal and rational. Therefore, if a Minister assert that a Correction Direction is needed in the public interest, the Court cannot delve into the evidence to weight up whether the direction should be issued or not. So long as the Minister's reasons are in line with the purpose of the Act, the Court will generally not interfere. Judicial review is thus a difficult proceeding to mount and to win.

Looking into the totality then, it is my assessment that the powers of judicial oversight of Ministers' powers under POFMA are severely limited.

Next, why POFMA may endanger national interest? Sir, the Government should not assume that Singaporeans who criticise or query are malicious. Criticisms and queries may well arise out of genuine concern and provide opportunities for detailed and measured responses.

If we wish to imbue citizens with the real sense of ownership, we should focus on empowering minds and hearts with knowledge. This knowledge should not just come when falsehoods emerge, but on an ongoing basis.

The Government has confirmed that it agrees that arming citizens with knowledge is a powerful weapon against falsehoods. To this end, the Government should do some introspection as to how it may itself have contributed to the spread of falsehoods by its control of information.

One past episode on how incomplete information may lead to erroneous conclusions happened 15 years ago. Two economists were rebuked by the Government for putting up job figures suggesting that the majority of new jobs were taken up by foreigners in the previous five years. This was strongly refuted by the Government which then released statistics previously not disclosed showing that in fact for every 10 jobs created, nine went to residents.

The two economists were labelled as irresponsible and unprofessional. In their defence, they said that they had taken the initial figures from MOM website while the newly released figures were information they had no access to. If the same had occurred after POFMA was enacted, would the professors be required to tag corrections to their reports online? How would the professionals standing thereby be diminished in the eyes of their colleagues, students and the world at large? Worse of all, would they and other economists choose to steer clear of researching or writing about Singapore to avoid such backlashes? If so, Singapore would be the poorer for it.

Sir, the Government had been trying hard to convince the public that fears about the Bill having a chilling effect on the freedom of speech are unfounded. How convincing is this?

The Bill is not only targeted at deliberate falsehoods, but at all statements the Government deems false, even if innocently communicated. Under clauses 11(4) and 12(4), it is stated that Correction Directions may be issued by the Minister or the alternate authority even if the person who communicated the statement did not know or had no reason to believe that the statement is false.

The Minister or the alternate may even require the Correction notice to be published in print form – in a specified newspaper which cost will have to be borne by the person concerned. As it would up to the Minister or the alternate to specify the size of the correction notice, the person will have to buy the required space from the newspapers which could easily run into thousands of dollars.

The Government says that it is giving assurances in the Parliament that would be recorded in Hansard and other controls will be enacted in subsidiary legislation. As POFMA is a law that potentially catches all Singaporeans who use digital communication, the Government should make the law as clear and as accessible as possible. Is it reasonable to expect an ordinary citizen who wants to understand POFMA to have to cross refer from the Act to subsidiary legislation, and then to the parliamentary debates as well?

Finally, Sir, before I end, I would like to address briefly the issue that was debated earlier about having the Courts as the first arbiter and the issue of speed.

Earlier, there was discussion about whether the Court could respond quickly enough in certain situations. As debated by my party colleagues earlier, we believe that this is a matter of how the Courts are resourced and how the processes are streamlined. So, we believe that it is possible if there is political will to do so.

Secondly, the Government is a very powerful Government with a lot of resources. If the Government wishes to correct any statement that is floating online, it does not have to wait for POFMA. It has many channels of communication at its disposal through the mass media, through its own Internet channels – I think more than sufficient to get its information out, to combat the effects of any falsehood as it deems it, even if it has to wait for POFMA adjudication.

And finally, Sir, at the outset of this debate, I think the Minister made clear that he or the Government already has very vast powers under other laws, and POFMA is a voluntary scoping down of Government's powers.

So, Sir, in totality, I do not believe that the Government would be helpless if POFMA requires the Courts to be the first arbiter in this respect.

Sir, finally, to conclude, we have grave objections to POFMA and the damage it would do to Singaporeans who wish to debate and discuss current affairs and topics of national importance. POFMA is lopsided and gives the Ministers too much power in matters where they may be interested parties. We opposed the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sim Ann.

3.37 pm

Ms Sim Ann (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Speaker, Sir, I have listened to the debate between Members Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Low Thia Khiang, and Mr Low used an analogy that seemed a little violent, so I would like to clarify.

I believe that under this Bill, the Minister is actually "merely reporting" and not "beheading". Why do I say that? In most cases, the Minister's role is to inform the public that a falsehood has been put out and to issue directions for correction, while the original post can be retained. Hence, there is no cause for claiming that "beheading" has occurred.

The Workers' Party suggests that the Minister should lodge an application with the Court and let the Court decide. But the Minister has explained that online falsehoods can spread very quickly. If the Court is the first arbiter, then it is akin to using water far away to put out a fire nearby. This is precisely what today’s debate is about; we do not want slow remedies.

3.39 pm

Mr Low Thia Khiang: (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] With regard to the issue of "using water far away to put out a fire nearby", during the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister has said that there are already many existing laws and powers that the Government can utilise and this Bill is only a small part. Therefore, using "water" near or far away is not an issue. The Government already has measures on hand and is able to take action immediately when a falsehood surfaces.

As to whether the punishment can be considered as an "execution", my answer is "yes, it is an execution". Why? Because the Minister can decide which action to take. The Workers' Party Chairman spoke on this just a while ago. For example, for the two economists involved in a previous case, they were badly affected. If you lodge an appeal with the Courts after being ordered by the Minister to clarify on the website, it is like complaining to the Courts after you have been executed. What is the point of appealing? You would have been "executed" already. This is why we believe that one should not be punished first. Instead, the case should be brought to Court first, and be decided by the judge. This is the correct way.

3.41 pm

Mr Speaker: Sim Ann.

Ms Sim Ann: Mr Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I think we have now come to a very important theme of the debate. I believe there is some confusion over the scale of the issue. I think Members from the Workers' Party have tried their best to conflate the impact of falsehoods with the impact of personal opinion when they are entirely different. The Select Committee Report has pointed out that the effects of online falsehood can come thick and fast and are far-reaching. This is why I used the analogy of "using water far away to put out a fire nearby". In the event where society and security are seriously affected by the proliferation of falsehoods, how can it be that we should still seek "water from far away" to put out this "fire" raging nearby?

3.42 pm

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, clarification in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I have stated clearly that the Government already has a lot of power under existing legislation. They can even shut down websites. The Minister also provided a list in his opening speech that stated clearly the legislation the Government has at its disposal to stop the propagation of online falsehoods. He said that POFMA is a relatively small weapon and there are other stronger weapons on hand. Even if there is an urgent problem, the Government has other powers. So, the scale of the problem does not matter, as the Government already has weapons on hand to stop the propagation of online falsehoods.

3.43 pm

Mr Speaker: Ms Sim Ann.

Ms Sim Ann: Mr Speaker, in Mandarin again.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Speaker, Sir, I think this debate has become more bizarre. The Workers' Party seems to believe that the Government has some kind of weapon to tackle the problem of falsehoods, weapons that even the most advanced governments and countries of the world do not have. I believe that Mr Low may not have looked at the Select Committee Report in detail. The problem of online falsehoods is a global one which has left many countries at a loss about what to do. If you say the current Government already possesses tools to stop the proliferation of fake news immediately, does it not mean that this debate has been totally meaningless?

3.44 pm

Mr Speaker: Mr Low.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: In Mandarin, Sir.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Our Secretary-General is in the Committee. He told us about the contents of the Committee's discussion, so we know what was discussed in the Committee.

With regard to the question of timing, based on existing legislation, the Government has the authority to shut down websites, including Facebook, but that would mean the Prime Minister would lose 1.2 million followers. This means that you can take measures if the situation is very urgent, even without POFMA.

Mr Speaker: Unless there are any fresh perspectives, I would suggest you move on. Ms Sim Ann.

Ms Sim Ann: (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I believe that Mr Low has just undermined his own argument.

You claim to have understood the Report very well, but whether you have understood it or distorted it will become clear. We still have plenty of opportunity and I believe the issue will become obvious as the debate continues.

3.45 pm

The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Zaqy Mohamad): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this legislation that will help enhance Singapore's safety, national and public interests.

Much has already been said about this Bill in the public domain and in this House by my colleagues. Thus, allow me to frame my speech into three parts: (a) What is the most important aspect of this Bill; (b) Why is it important for Singapore? (c) Can the new regulations create a more informed and discerning society?

To me, the most important feature of the Bill is its ability to give the public access and visibility to the corrections, because then the public decides, comparing the original and the correction, on what is to be believed. This reflects the Singapore Government's trust in the electorate to decide, and it is also a recognition of how our society has matured.

Countries around the world have either implemented some form of legislation or are exploring it to tackle fake news. Not only because of the risks of falsehoods and its spread. But also because tech and new media companies that are used as platforms to viral these fake news are either incapable of or unwilling to solve the entirety of the problem leading to market failure in the form of a negative externality. Most agreed that policy intervention is necessary to correct this failure and reduce the cost of this externality.

For Singapore, this is very important because of how open we are as a society and country. And also, because the very levers of attack that these online falsehoods tend to target are the pillars of our society. Allow me to elaborate.

At the crux of the problem is the nature and intent of fake news. It is designed to cause divisions and distrust in society. And the best ways to divide societies are to deepen the natural fault lines of race, religion, political ideologies and xenophobia by feeding into people's fears or insecurities thereby fuelling panic and hysteria. To that extent it is not dissimilar from terrorism. Terrorism is also meant to strike terror into the heart of society and therefore creating divisions and distrust along societal fault lines. I do not believe I am exaggerating therefore when I say that fake news is not far from terrorism in its intent and malice to divide.

That fake news has that ability to strike divisions in society is something that we cannot take lightly in Singapore. It is no secret that our social stability hinges on our racial and religious harmony. It has always been a pillar of our nation-building, which is something we cannot compromise on. We have seen in the recent example of the Sri Lankan bomb blasts on Easter Day, that a society where fault lines have existed, can be a fertile ground for terror groups even when there was little or no apparent threat there in the first place.

Singapore is no different. Our diversity makes us a vulnerable target for bad actors who wish to divide us along racial and religious lines. The reality of our world today is that there are people who will weaponise religion to achieve their aims – to win an election, or to radicalise others with their views.

The truth is, today, social media and digital technology have become convenient, cheap and fast tools to amplify their views and to drown out other legitimate voices. The confluence of these two factors can lead to dangerous results. There is sufficient evidence around us to show that these observations are very real.

Take our neighbour, Indonesia, for example, which ranks as the third largest market for Facebook, and the top five market for WhatsApp, Instagram and Twitter. During its recent Presidential Election, Mafindo – the country's fact-checking agency – documented a surge in political fake news that used ethnicity and religion to target both candidates.

Some of these false claims include that Jokowi was Chinese, Christian and a communist. As many as 25% of Indonesians polled believed this news and as many as 42% of the Prabowo supporters believed this about Jokowi. Other false news included that Jokowi wanted to ban religious teachings in schools and abolish the call to prayer, among other things.

The falsehoods will follow different fault lines in each country. In majority Roman-Catholic Philippines, false claims that a Cebu-based Parish priest had impregnated two daughters of his associate priest was consumed by more than 185,000 people and triggered anti-Catholic comments from other religious quarters.

All of this has happened in our very neighbourhood. Why would Singapore be any different if such false news were left unchecked here? In fact, the impact could be far worse and could create a severe and irreparable dent in the social harmony that we have worked so hard to build and uphold. It is clearly not worth it.

If we take all other aspects of national security very seriously, as we should, then fake news should be treated no differently, given its potential harm. The legislation and powers in place will easily separate what is fake and untrue from what is true, fact-based and analytical. As such, it will allow Government agencies the bandwidth and precision with which it can engage credible views thereby strengthening political discourse. So, even when there is a statement of fact that is false, and it is against public interest, the Bill will enforce a remedy that will most likely be a Correction Direction – to carry a clarification while the false statement can remain up. That will then allow readers the choice to decide for themselves what is right or what is wrong.

Such efforts will thus create a more informed citizenry with accurate information rather than disinformation thereby increasing the quality of policy analysis or political discourse and help us create a more informed and discerning society. Most importantly, the public has to recognise that the Government is acting for the betterment of Singapore and Singaporeans. This law will ensure that our children will not grow up in the future in a society where they will be the subjects, victims or consumers of fake news. This Government has attempted to provide stability, peace and safety to generations of Singaporeans and have always acted in the long term. No reason why it should not continue to do so with POFMA, whether it is against the perils of fake news, terror or social instability. I would want to provide that peace of mind to my children.

My response to Workers' Party's continued insistence that the Court be the first arbitrator of fact, but based on what has been discussed so far, it seems that the only arbitrator is the Court. And that you portray the Government as an untrustworthy boogie man. Well, my response is probably summed up in the following quote. Former US President Franklin Roosevelt said, "Let us never forget that Government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and Government officials, but the voters of this country."

Dear Speaker, Sir and my respected colleagues in this House, given all the problems with falsehoods, and the issues it has already created the world over, as well as our current inability to address such externalities created by the advent of new media, the Bill is timely and pertinent. I thus support the Bill. Please allow me to continue in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the rapid development of technology, including information and communication platforms, has brought many benefits to the world and greatly helped make our lives easier.

However, alongside these great benefits, potentially harmful effects also exist.

As we harness technology, we must also be aware of any negative impact that comes with it and consider the best ways to overcome them without hindering the convenience and advantages that we can use.

Online platforms brought many benefits to the world but, like many other things, any misuse, whether intentional or not, needs to be dealt with.

This is especially so for Singapore, a small multi-racial and multi-religious country where there are minorities and the majority. Our different races and religions have been able to live harmoniously, whether in schools, in living spaces, at work and in businesses. This did not happen by chance. We have worked hard to develop policies and initiatives that instil trust amongst the different races and religions.

Therefore, we should not take things for granted and be complacent about the peace and harmony that we enjoy today. Our diversity makes us vulnerable targets for bad actors who wish to divide our society along racial and religious lines. We have seen this happening in other countries. Hence, we need to build a proper defence against it.

Singapore is a country with a multi-racial and multi-religious society. Our different races and religions have been able to live harmoniously, be it in schools, living spaces and at work.

The reality of our world today is that there are people who will weaponise religion against followers of other religions to achieve their aims; to win an election or to radicalise others with their views.

Social media and digital technology have become a convenient, cheap and fast tool to amplify their views and to drown out other legitimate voices. We have seen this happen in nearby countries.

Indonesia, for example, is the third largest market for Facebook users and the top five market globally for WhatsApp, Instagram and Twitter. The propagation of fake news that utilises religious elements can be fatal to the country, where the majority are Muslims while minorities comprise Christians, Hindus and Buddhists.

During the recent Indonesian Presidential Election, the country's fact-checking agency, Mafindo, documented political fake news that used ethnicity and religion to target both Presidential candidates. Its report showed that political fake news experienced a 61% surge. President Jokowi fell victim to 75 fake news articles that went viral, while his challenger, Prabowo, experienced 50 such incidents.

This fake news appeared in Facebook, followed by Twitter and WhatsApp by percentages. Around 30% of this fake news was shared in digital media, rearranged neatly and bolstered by other details and accounts. The fake news was created according to the fault lines of a particular country.

We cannot take the position that these cases occur far away from our country and we are not vulnerable to the dangers.

I would like to mention an example of Sunni-Shia tensions that came about during an incident a few years ago involving two Police officers who were detained under the ISA for terrorism-related offences. One of the detainees was said to believe that the war in Syria was a result of Sunni-Shia conflict. He wanted to join the Free Syrian Army and fight against the Shia followers in Syria.

Imagine the impact of such tensions in Singapore. In this country, Sunni followers form the majority of Muslims, while Shia followers comprise around just 1%. The fact is that Singapore is not immune to hatred targeted to the Shia, which is gaining traction around the world.

The social media group in Facebook called Singapore Malays Reject Shiism has 1,814 members who are often found attacking the Shia followers. There are also comments on YouTube and social media that refer to the Shia followers as having gone astray, becoming apostates, and, in fact, called them "monkeys" and "the Devil".

Mr Hazrul Jamari, who gave evidence at the Select Committee hearings, said that he encountered videos of beheadings in Syria that had been spread through social media in Singapore. These videos aim to create trouble between Shia and Sunni followers. He agreed that the tension between Sunni and Shia followers worsened in Singapore after the videos were exchanged and posted.

How would this Bill deal with such incidents? It must be clarified that claims related to history and the interpretation of religious history would not be included in the Bill. However, if falsehoods have been used to create tension, this Bill can help to counter it.

The fact remains that if falsehoods are allowed to propagate, it will be a threat to our country. The strategy to deal with it has been widely discussed. The proposed measures have been considered carefully without any intent to hinder the flow of information or to curb opinions. This includes asking which authority can take action, and if there should be a fact-checking body.

However, based on the examples I have mentioned earlier, the speed at which falsehoods spread, especially those that pit religion against each other, can result in an undesirable situation if it is not dealt with immediately.

The proposal to delegate the responsibility to either a body or a committee is a good suggestion, but in terms of implementation it will create another layer and its process may take up more time. And such a body will also need to be appointed by the Government. So, we will be going around in circles.

Therefore, the proposal for the Minister to take the step of issuing a factual correction on any falsehood is the best method, because it can be done more quickly, but at the same time, it does not mean that the Minister can act without any strong justification.

The law will only be used if a statement of fact is false and goes against public interest. If such a case happens, it is likely that the measure taken will be a correction direction, that is, to place the correction alongside the false statement. Readers can then decide the truth for themselves.

There may be concerns that, through the Act, are the Ministers or the Government being given too much curbing power and who can override the Government's power? In this matter, I welcome the availability of open processes and channels for those who wish to challenge the decision and to bring the matter to the Courts, and the process will also be made quick and convenient.

Earlier, Mr Faisal Manap and Mr Leon Perera highlighted a few things that question the Government's integrity and the intent of POFMA. Although clarifications were made by Minister Shanmugam about protection, with the Court as a final arbiter, they continue to ignore that fact. Minister Shanmugam had just explained earlier that the Courts are part of the process like our citizens.

The Government must be at the frontline because the Ministries should be in a position to respond quickly. If riots or violence occur as a result of falsehoods, the Government needs to act quickly. The Court is not necessarily open at all times and the judge will need to be briefed. It is a practical matter for the sake of national security.

The ability to act quickly will determine whether damage is irreparable or not, and whether people will suffer or not in the end. But this does not mean that the Court is not involved. If any party feels that a Minister's decision needs to be reviewed, Minister Shanmugam has said earlier that the Court will be the final arbiter and the case will be heard in as early as nine days.

The Workers' Party continues to ignore the fact that the Minister can be challenged. Do not forget that if the Court finds that the challenge is successful, this would also impact the Minister's political performance because people will be questioning his judgement.

So, I do not think that the Minister or the Government takes things lightly. More importantly, the POFMA's approach is quite different from other countries which have dealt with it through a take-down order. We are using the correction direction. The people can decide for themselves whether what they see is the truth or otherwise.

The approach is to make the correction alongside the original post. So, people can decide. I hope that they do not underestimate the people of Singapore as not being smart enough to make a decision. Finally, I think that the snide remarks directed at our leaders, to prove that public office holders cannot be trusted to provide good progress, are erroneous.

When the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew stated that PAP is the Government and the Government is the PAP, I believe that it was based on the standard of democracy in the Westminster Parliament. He meant that the Government is formed by the party that wins the most number of seats in Parliament and the party that forms the Parliament is elected by the people to exercise wisdom for the country.

If the Workers' Party wins the election one day, it will be a WP Parliament. The same term is used commonly around the world for any similar system. So, let us not twist the quotes of our Founder just to support unsound arguments.

At the end of the day, Singapore is not free from challenges and threats, such as online falsehoods, and we must agree that a careful and effective strategy must be taken and we should not delay this. It needs consensus and cooperation from everyone.

We have been facing the dangers of online falsehoods for a long time and seen that its adverse impact includes dividing society. Should we just remain silent? It is the duty of any government to protect every member of society and safeguard national interests. The people have all along given this trust to the PAP Government and this Bill is just another step to extend that protection to Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, I support this Bill.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to correct what was said by Mr Zaqy Mohamad when he stated that I was playing with the quotes that I mentioned, which were words spoken by the late Prime Minister. That was not my intention. I said that the words uttered by the late Prime Minister can be interpreted this way, that the Government includes Government bodies, statutory bodies and also the Civil Service and vice-versa.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Thank you. Perhaps we have different interpretations. No further questions, Speaker.

4.08 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, permit me to go straight to the issues without making the usual prefatory remarks. Sir, the structure of the statute, from a drafting perspective, is unique. Usually, in previous pieces of legislation passed by this House, when it comes to exercise of the Minister's discretion dealing with public order issues, there is no providing of an appeal as a matter of right to the Court. There is a limited recourse in form of judicial review of the Minister's decision.

In some statutes, the Court's power of review has been ousted, for example, the Maintenance of the Religious Harmony Act and the Internal Security Act.

Here, what is contemplated is two-fold. An appeal to the Supreme Court on the issue of the truth or falsity of the representation and attribution of the representation to a person in Singapore as well as a parallel track of a judicial review of the Minister's decision, which operates separately. This regime deals with the point that the hon Member Assoc Prof Walter Theseira made about what happens if the Government gets it wrong, by reference to Galileo's case. In Galileo's case, the Church took more than three centuries to correct itself. Here there is an appeal process and there are timelines for the appeal process to complete.

Originally, I was concerned with the structure of the Act leading to the appeal process. This is because when I looked at it, I saw that the appeal is made "after the fact" meaning after the Minister's decision is made. And it will only be initiated by the respondent to the direction made under POFMA. The concern I had was that, ordinarily, it would be for the Executive to make out the case first as opposed to requiring the respondent at the outset to state why the Executive got it wrong without knowing the Executive's case.

But having reviewed the material closer, my concern on this matter has been assuaged. This is because I noted that the Minister, stated yesterday, at the point when a Direction is issued, the Minister would have to nail his or her colours to the mast by stating the reasons why the Direction is being issued. This Direction will also be gazetted.

In relation to this point, the hon Members Ms Anthea Ong as well as Assoc Prof Walter Theseira said, "But that is in subsidiary legislation". When the Minister made his statement at the Second Reading of the Bill, that goes into the corpus of the Hansard on how the legislation is to be reviewed and that creates a legitimate expectation. When the Court reviews the exercise of power against the legitimate expectations created, it can strike down the power which is used outside the legitimate expectations it has been created.

So, the Executive's case would be crystalised at the outset. The respondent would know what case he or she has to meet. In this regard, the hon Member Mr Leon Perera said but in the process the legal burden would be on the respondent. With great respect, that is not how I understand POFMA to be. The provisions are quite clear. The legal burden always is rested with the Executive to prove that the Part 3 directions comply with the criteria for falsehood as well as public interest.

Hon Members of Parliament have engaged in a lively debate on which is the proper entity or person who should make a decision to issue Directions under POFMA. Under the proposed POFMA, there are two cumulative conditions: falsity of the statement of fact and public interest. When it comes to deciding what is in public interest, what kind of decision maker do we need? This is the point that hon Member Mr Cedric Foo made very cogently a few hours ago. We would need a decision maker who is in touch with the ground situation, not just in Singapore but even overseas. He or she would have to have access to intelligence reports, gauge what would be the likely reaction of Singapore residents, what steps are needed to address the problems on the ground. These are just some examples.

With due respect, it is not easy for the Courts to make such a decision. Courts are best suited to apply the law, including the law promulgated by this House. Do not get me wrong. I am not saying that the Court cannot review a decision made in public interest. I recalled when the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill was moved in this House, my Parliamentary colleagues from the Workers' Party spoke about the development of judicial review in Singapore, by reference to the speech delivered extra-judicially by the hon Chief Justice in America. His honour said that "judicial review is the sharp edge that keeps government action within the form and substance of the law." His honour also spoke about the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation within the context of judicial review. So, there is a robust system in place. This is the system that will guard against actions of a rogue government. This would ensure that powers are only used in the manner that the Government has promised at the Second Reading of this Bill.

Decisions of what is in public interest are therefore best to be left with Ministers who head the Ministries, have access to Civil Service apparatus, are elected and are accountable to the people through the ballot box.

The hon Member Prof Lim Sun Sun said that Ministers would benefit from inputs from advisory panel and I agree. It may well be that the Ministers, after the passing of this Bill, may want to set up advisory panels to get the necessary inputs and make appropriate decisions.

The hon Member Mr Pritam Singh made a comparison between POHA and POFMA, and pointed out that there is regime for expedited protection orders issued by the Court. He, I believe, wondered why this same route cannot be used for POFMA. Looking at just the legal ingredients, there is a singular difference. The issues under POFMA, unlike POHA, affect public interest. This means a lot more is at stake.

I am not trivialising the effect of harassment of a POHA victim. I am not. But what I am trying to say is that, when it comes to POFMA, we are talking about public interest. There is a potential for disaffection amongst groups of people. It can change the complexion of society if something happens. And that is why we cannot afford to have inaction or slow action. And that is why the procedure has been streamlined to allow for the Executive to take action fast but without losing the accountability that the regime contemplates.

The hon Member, Mr Leon Perera, spoke about the American experience, where in America, a judicial officer would make himself or herself available to issue a warrant of arrest. Now, that may be so in America. In Singapore, I believe, by the 1970s, we have moved ahead. In Singapore, Police officers are vested with powers of arrest without warrant. These are serious powers but they are accountable and they do it in the right circumstance and we see the effect of it. From the 1970s to date, actually, our crime rates has come down so much and really, we need not compare ourselves with America in this situation.

Mr Perera also talked about the impact on the individual – who is visited with a Direction under POFMA. We need to compare, because when you are talking about public interest as a potential for large groups of people to be affected. Yes, there is an impact on the individual. But what is the kind of impact we are talking about? Most times, we are talking about a Correction order. He or she can comment on the correction order. He or she can comment on the Ministerial action. So, we need to strike a proper balancing act between the impact on an individual and the potential for disaffection amongst lots of people. And I think this Bill strikes the right balance.

I now turn to the issue of assessment of the representation of fact. Several hon Members in Opposition, including the hon Member Mr Low Thia Khiang, expressed the view that POFMA is meant to chill criticisms against the Government. He then went on to state, "I have no faith in this Government" or words to that effect, and the Pioneer Generation Package and the Merdeka Generation Package were meant to buy votes.

As stated by the hon Member, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, both statements are clearly statements of opinion and not caught by POFMA. Just like if I were to say that some hon Members in this House are fearmongering. That is an opinion. That is not a statement of fact. How can there be a chilling effect introduced by POFMA in these circumstances?

What we need to be mindful about is that as the hon Minister mentioned yesterday, what the Government is trying to do through POFMA is to narrow the powers. He mentioned about two pieces of legislation where there are broad powers and if used may be like using a sledgehammer to break a nut. Here, you have fairly forensic powers, including that of issuing a Correction order. Now, would not that be a better approach? If the Government were to commit to use a narrow set of powers, is that the sign of a government which is not acting in good faith?

The hon Members Ms Irene Quay and Ms Anthea Ong mentioned that there is nothing in the Bill that states that the focus of POFMA is only on statements of facts and not opinion. But that has been stated by a number of frontbenchers on a few occasions. And if one were to look at the interpretation of statute, read it with the Interpretation Act, the Courts will know what to do. They will know what is the intention of the Government. They know that POFMA Directions are not meant to be applied for opinions.

The hon Members Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Dennis Tay highlighted that under POFMA, statements which are misleading are also caught in addition to statements which are false. They seem to suggest that there is a significant enlargement of the scope of the Bill in these circumstances.

Now, I looked at the definition under the proposed section 2(2) of the Bill. What is clear is that the main criterion is that there must be a statement of fact, and this is a point that the hon Senior Minister of State Mr Edwin Tong made. So, the usage of misleading does not enlarge the scope of the representations to include opinion. The way I read section 2(2B) is that the intention behind the usage of misleading is to focus on statements of fact that weave truth with fiction, such that it creates a distorted statement which is false.

So, in relation to the hon Member Mr Dennis Tan's example of a person who states, "I lodged a Police report". That assessment is either true or false, and if you were to put in the definition of misleading, it does not change. The ultimate outcome is whether or not the statement is a statement of fact which is true or false. So, with respect, I do not see this as significantly enlarging the issues. In fact, the wording is essential to deal with the mischief this Bill is aimed at addressing.

There is also a point made by the hon Member Mr Low Thia Khiang about the Government being a player and a referee. It is vested with powers under the POFMA. I reflected on his statement. I believe with respect, he may have conflated a number of scenarios together. I think that no one in this House would raise an objection if a POFMA Direction is issued to deal with a public interest, race issue, language issue, religious issue or issues dealing with relations with foreign powers or national security. In these kind of situations, both sides of the House must unite. That is a no-brainer. It is sometimes good in debates to highlight what is the common ground that is achieved between both sides of the House.

So, what are we left with? We are left with areas where potentially, powers can be used for political purposes. In that kind of situation, it is pretty clear to me, reading POFMA, that it would not be consistent with the definition of public interest for a Minister to issue a Direction to further his or her political aims. What is the safeguard? The safeguard is the Court because the Court, through judicial review, would be the referee.

The hon Member Mr Faisal Manap talked about conflict of interest. He gave an example of the Prime Minister stating in this House that he does not wish to sue his siblings because they are his siblings and he is in a conflict position in relation to the allegations made by siblings against him about abuse of power. But that is in relation to him, in his personal standing. But when it comes to Government, that is a completely different thing. There is a set procedure. If a Minister is conflicted, he cannot make that decision. Somebody else would have to make a decision. So, the issue of conflict would not arise in these circumstances.

Ultimately, we must all remember our fellow Singaporeans are looking at us and they would be holding the Government to account through the ballot box. I do think, however, it would be useful for the hon Minister to provide an outline of how he intends that the powers under POFMA be exercised, in terms of the variety of tools, to effect a Correction, for example, or effect to take down, because we hear from the hon Minister that in most circumstances, it would usually be a Correction order.

This outline can help even the Court later to assess whether the exercise of power under POFMA is within the legitimate expectations arising from the Minister's statements when it reviews the Minister's decision later. It sharpens the ability of the Court to review Executive action that ensures that this is legal and proper. And I believe this is the point that the hon Member Mr Vikram Nair made.

I now come to my next point. I have a concern that two parallel procedures providing for judicial oversight may, in certain circumstances, create difficulties. I made mention at the outset that is not usual for statues to have this two levels of judicial oversight, and I have some sympathies for the draftsman.

In a situation where a respondent both prosecutes an appeal to a Supreme Court Judge and also intends to take up judicial review, the Supreme Court Judge listening to the appeal in relation to whether a statement of fact is true or false, would only deal with half the issues. His decision on the appeal is not dispositive of the matter. This is not necessarily the most judicious use of a Supreme Court Judge's resource.

I am also concerned that there could be a risk of inconsistent decisions as a High Court decision on the truth of the representation is not necessarily binding on the High Court dealing with the judicial review.

Let me explain through an example. Hon Members of this House may recall an incident involving a market operator issuing a flyer in four languages, namely English, Mandarin, Malay and Hindi. Tamil was excluded. Let us consider a situation where a person noting this incident publishes a representation online referring to the above matter and announcing "Hindi has become a recognised language in Singapore".

Let us assume that the Government takes action against the person under POFMA and the person appeals to the High Court on the issue of whether the statement is false and also seeks a judicial review.

Under our current rules, the High Court appeal has to be disposed off first, before the separate judicial review application. This is because, under our rules, judicial review applications are measures of last resort. The High Court would then have to decide first whether the statement is true or false.

This may seem like a binary choice – true or false. But the reasons underpinning the decision may be relevant on a consequent issue of public interest. Let us assume the High Court decides that the representation is false and provides an explanation for its decision. Looking at the representation, it could be false in a number of ways, but I will highlight just two.

One, it could be false as it suggests Tamil is being replaced by Hindi. This obviously would create feelings of enmity and ill-will between groups of people; particularly involving Tamil-speaking people. It may be in public interest to correct that representation. Or it could be false as it suggests that Hindi is being added, not replaced, as a recognised language. Here, whether or not there is a public interest involved, it is more arguable.

Some in this House may ask whether there is a need for the High Court to articulate its reasons. Could it just say true or false? The answer is, of course, no.

The Supreme Court is an independent branch of our Government that is vested judicial power under Article 93 of the Constitution. It has a responsibility to build jurisprudence, explain its decisions through grounds that are released, unless the issues are really plain and obvious, especially if there is an appeal. It also ensures transparency.

Let us assume that the person loses the appeal and then commences the High Court action to review their decision. The High Court, listening to the judicial review application, is not bound by the decision of the other Court. The focus of the review will be on public interest but it overlaps with what is assessed to be a representation of fact because that is what the lawyers call, a jurisdictional fact. So, it can be, for example, open to the High Court to decide the statement is true because Hindi is offered in our schools and therefore, it is a recognised language.

So, to guard against these possibilities, I wonder if the Ministry had considered enacting a statutory review procedure, together with the appeal procedure, such that a person who wishes to challenge the Minister's decision on falsity and public interest, can do it in one shot. It can overcome the procedural hurdle that the appeal has been disposed off before the judicial review process begins.

My suggestion is a bit different from what the hon Member Mr Dennis Tan has suggested because he said the High Court should have oversight over all issues. Here, I think there is merit in retaining judicial review in relation to exercise of public interest. That is a decision that has been made by the Minister for the reasons I mentioned earlier but, of course, can be subject to a review.

The same High Court Judge should decide on both matters. Even if the same High Court Judge is designated by the Chief Justice to hear the judicial review matter, so long as the matters are separate, he is not bound by his prior decision. So, by twinning the process, there is no risk of inconsistent decisions.

To guard against abuse of process of judicial review, there can even be a stipulation for a leave procedure to sift out unmeritorious applications. It is important that statutory review procedures be simplified and be rendered cost-effective – this is a point that my learned friend Ms Sylvia Lim made, for the same reasons as to why the appeal procedure has to be cost-effective as well.

I would welcome the hon Minister's thoughts on this. I am not saying that this is a likely outcome but I think there could be some risks and I would be grateful for his elaboration on this matter.

Now, I come to my last point. The hon Nominated Members of Parliament —

Mr Speaker: Mr Pillai, you need to wrap up.

Mr Murali Pillai: Yes, Sir. If I used up my time then, I will stop here, Sir.

Mr Speaker: You have.

Mr Murali Pillai: Okay, I will stop.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. Mr Leon Perera.

4.30 pm

Mr Leon Perera: I thank the hon Member Mr Murali Pillai for some of his references to my speech and the speeches of my colleagues. I would respectfully just ask for a few points of clarification.

Firstly, Mr Pillai referred to the Government bearing a legal burden because the Government has an obligation, as has been stated, to outline the reasons behind exercising a Part 3 or Part 4 directive. Would the hon Member acknowledge that it would only become a legal burden as in a pleading before the Court if the respondent actually went to court? And would the hon Member acknowledge that there are, I think, many respondents who would not take up the burden, would not want to take on the Government in court for the reasons that my colleagues have shared? That is my first point.

My second point is the hon Member referred to POHA Courts dealing with matters that are perhaps less important in the bigger scheme of things than POFMA. I actually understand where the hon Member is coming from. I think there is a grain of truth there. I would not sort of wave that off. Would there not be a further argument for the Government, the state, the society to actually invest in developing judicial capacity, structures and processes even more for the administration of POFMA than what has already been done for the administration of POHA. We recognise that POFMA is dealing with actually more important societal or political issues as opposed to POHA which is dealing with individual cases, that affect individuals only.

And the last point really is, I think, the hon Member mentioned that I talked about the effect on individuals of receiving a Correction directive and it could affect their reputation and so on. There are individual issues at stake but we could balance that against the societal issue. Would the hon Member acknowledge that actually the point I was making was not so much that it is bad for the individuals but that it actually chills free speech, it may lead to self-censorship, it may lead to self-censorship affecting political discourse and, therefore, by implication political outcomes. So, there are very large societal and political issues at stake. It is not just a matter of balancing individual against social.

So, having said that, I thank the hon Member and I, respectfully put forward these requests for clarification.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pillai.

Mr Murali Pillai: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to reply to the hon Member Mr Leon Perera. He raises three issues and I am grateful to Mr Perera for the opportunity to clarify the points that I have made in relation to these three points.

The first point he made was in relation to the legal burden in any appeal proceedings. And it goes without saying and I agree fully with him, the legal burden would only arise if there are legal proceedings, meaning if there was an appeal. But that is not the end of the matter. As I mentioned in my speech, at the outset, the Minister would have to nail his or her colours on the mast, because he would have to issue the reasons why a direction is issued and that is gazetted. And that is available to members of public as well. So, from that perspective, there is accountability.

In relation to the second point, I believe the second point concerns about making sure that there is sufficient judicial resource. That is a very, very important point. And, in fact, it occurred to me that the Government obviously is taking POFMA issues seriously because it could have designated an appeal from a POFMA issue relating to a representation of fact at the District Court level.

What it did here is to elevate it to the Supreme Court level. So, we are looking increasing judicial resources at the Supreme Court level. That is not an easy situation. At the Supreme Court level, you are talking about Supreme Court Judges who are at the top of the game. They have security of tenure, you have to make sure they do not just deal with POFMA matters but they deal with the whole gamut of issues and make sure they superintend justice in the way that reflects public interest, that ensures and safeguards the interest of our country. It is not easy. In fact, we have made a lot of progress in our Bar but I cannot think of more than 10 people whom I can offer as candidates for judicial appointments in the Supreme Court because it is a very rigorous process. It is not easy to build resources that way.

That is why having regard to the limitations we have as a small country, I thought the configuration that POFMA envisages in relation to Ministerial action with accountability to the Courts always is a good balance. We need to be honest about the resources that we have or do not have.

The point about individuals and the chilling effect on them, I hear my learned friend but I think the point I was focused on is this. If we accept for the moment that all that POFMA is focused on is not opinion but statements of facts which are false, then the issue about chilling effect can be viewed a little bit more carefully and really see whether, indeed, it is really perceived or real. Like, for example, when a person says, you know, that "the Merdeka Generation Package is meant to buy votes", if the person says that "I have no faith in Government." If they were to say all these things and the assurance from the frontbenchers is that, "No, it is not caught POFMA", that I am trying to see how then POFMA introduces a chilling effect. Like what I also said in my speech was that there is nothing stopping the individual who is subject of a POFMA direction to comment on the POFMA Direction. So, he has that right in relation to what has happened to him.

Again, it is a balancing act. I do see where my learned friend Mr Perera is coming from. Sometimes, issues are perceived. Sometimes, we do not know exactly how things are going to pan out. We make the best judgement on the facts that we have and what we think would be the reasonable assessment or reasonable way people behave and then we see how it goes.

I believe I have covered all three points.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Very brief. I completely agree with the hon Member that this Government will definitely move faster than the Church did with Galileo. I think that is a given. But that is because the Church or the Inquisition did not have a robust fast appeal process in the primary legislation. That is why. So, I hope he would agree that that might be a good idea to have so that random changing of Popes and all that would not result in the appeal process being drawn out too long.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chen Show Mao.

4.38 pm

Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied): (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] According to the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill (POFMA), individuals who disseminate falsehoods that undermine the public interest can be jailed up to 10 years, fined up to $100,000. Legal persons can be fined up to $1 million. It cannot be said that this new Bill does not contain harsh terms.

According to the Bill, the Government can issue mandatory orders to individuals and online platforms to correct or remove falsehoods. Every Minister has the power to decide which information is genuine or false or against the public interest, and issue directives to correct or remove the information, even if the information has been amended or is no longer being disseminated in Singapore.

Is a statement of fact false or genuine, and is it against public interest – the Bill has given every Minister ample discretion to decide.

Under the Bill, "falsehoods" is defined as information that is “false or misleading, whether wholly or in part or whether on its own or in the context in which it appears". "Information" is defined as “any word (including abbreviation and initial), number, image (moving or otherwise), sound, symbol or other representation, or a combination of any of these".

"Public interest" is defined to include public confidence in our Government. That is to say, if any Minister believes that a particular falsehood has affected public confidence in the Government, including confidence in the Ministry he is in charge of, he has the authority to require that the false information be corrected or removed. If the party involved disagrees, he can lodge an appeal with the Court after he has made the corrections or removed the information.

As for that appeal, the Bill stipulates that the Court can only set aside the Minister's directives under three circumstances: if "the person did not communicate in Singapore the subject statement; it is not technically possible to comply with the Direction"; or if "the subject statement is not a statement of fact, or is a true statement of fact" – in other words, the information is not a falsehood. Even then, the Court will not be able to review the Minister’s determination of whether a false statement of fact has affected public confidence in the Government.

Mr Speaker, some say, "Why worry? This is simply the Government carrying out its work. If the people are not happy, they can change the Government at the next elections. What is more, the Minister is a dependable public servant. Even if the text of the Bill grants him great powers, he, in fact, will not abuse them."

This is a big topic which I touch on briefly here.

I believe that the success of a political system in delivering results for its people, whether in the West or the East, depends to a large extent on effective checks on the exercise of power. These checks take many forms: democratic elections are one; so is the rule of law, also the moral and ethical codes that guide and constrain the behaviour of government officials and the people; the public disclosure of information, including online information; the freedom of speech, including online speech and so on. They are all mechanisms that provide checks on the exercise of power. They are not mutually exclusive. The more of them we can integrate and accommodate, the better. This is a worthy challenge for us.

Let us talk about the checks on power provided by laws. The rule of law has had great success in the West historically. To promote the rule of law in opposition to the rule of man is also a growing aspiration in the East, making the rule of law increasingly a universal human value. But the rule of law is not achieved merely by a high volume of legislation. The existence of a large number of laws does not in itself effectively constrain the exercise of power. If the laws we make grant the Minister great powers, to be used at his discretion, if we do not clearly calibrate in the text of a law its constraints on power, then we will not be able to say that we have successfully met our challenge: that we successfully married the rule of law with our hopes for a rule of virtue.

Mr Speaker: Order. It is a fact that we have sat for nearly six hours. It is my opinion that we should take a break now. I suspend the Sitting until 5.05 pm

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.43 pm until 5.05 pm.

Sitting resumed at 5.05 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill

Debate resumed.

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, much has been discussed yesterday and today, and the debates seems to dwell in my view, disproportionately, on freedom of speech and silencing of the Government's critics. I would like to go back to why we are having this Bill.

Online falsehoods can lead to very serious law and order concerns, in a very short time. This is because purveyors of falsehoods prey on our societal fault lines, such as race and religion, in order to exploit social media algorithms, draw eyeballs and go viral. Around the world, we have seen a pattern of falsehoods proliferating in the wake of serious public order incidents. These falsehoods seek to exacerbate social divisions. And various examples have been cited in this House by various speakers.

Mr Speaker, Singapore is not exempt from fake news too. Clearly, we need speedy, targeted tools. In some other countries, the lack of these tools has led the Government to resort to disproportionate measures. We saw this in Sri Lanka, where in the immediate aftermath of the Easter Sunday bombings, the Sri Lankan government moved to ban various social media sites, including Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram among others, to pre-empt divisive misinformation. The ban was only lifted one week later. While I support the Bill, I would like to highlight some ground concerns and also to seek some clarifications from the Minister.

The key recommendation by the Select Committee was to disrupt online falsehoods by breaking the virality of the fake news and increase the reach of corrections. The Bill has put in place clauses requiring online platforms to spread the corrections. While this is a good move, the key to making this work lies in its implementation. How fast must a correction be put up? Viral stories spread quickly. If the correction is put up too late, we risk having the correction just as a token measure as the misinformation has already spread and few, if any, will read the correction if it is put up too late.

When it comes to increasing the reach of the corrections, social media sites must play their part. While the Bill requires online platforms to help alert users to the correction, sites will need to review the way they manage the original post to raise awareness about the correction. One example is the "share" function on Facebook. I propose that following a correction, all shared posts be applied with a filter, similar to the violent content filter that we already have, to alert users that there is an attached correction to this particular news. This way, new readers can be made aware that the content contains certain falsehoods.

Mr Speaker, another important aspect to consider is that often, the most convincing fake news are half-truths. Stories that are peppered with blatant false facts can be easily identified. But stories with just the right mix of facts and false statements can be hard to distinguish, and individuals do share these stories with their friends. The Minister has mentioned on more than one occasion that the Bill does not make it an offence for a person who unwittingly share an online falsehood.

But there is still much confusion on the ground, especially among our more elderly residents. They are worried because some people are telling them that they will get into trouble with the new law. So, they are worried, what if I forward something on WhatsApp to my friends? What if I shared something on Facebook or Instagram? Will I get into trouble? It is therefore important for the Government and Members of this House to continue reassuring the public on what happens if they are unwitting pawns of a purveyor of fake news. I think the short answer is, nothing happens.

Mr Speaker, since the First Reading of the Bill, there have been concerns about stifling freedom of speech and individual rights, even in this debate, we have heard Members of the Workers' Party that the Bill will have a chilling effect on free speech. I am therefore glad that the Minister has corrected these misconceptions: one, that the Court will be the final arbiter of what is to be considered true or false; two, that the Bill only pertains to statement of facts, not opinions, not criticism nor satire; and three, that the Bill is targeted at falsehoods that affect public interest.

However, the definition of public interest under the Bill is rather wide. While I acknowledge the need for the most workable version of defining public interest, such a wide definition could still be constantly challenged. Would the Courts be the final arbiter of whether an issue is of public interest? Does the Minister foresee many legal challenges on this front and what will be done to educate Singaporeans on what constitutes public interest?

The Government will also need to work together with the Courts to put in place a simple and expeditious appeal process. How fast will it take for an appeal to reach the Court? Will there be a fee imposed? Can a person seek a review of a Correction Direction without needing to engage a lawyer? These are all important operational concerns that need to be articulated to the public, to assure Singaporeans that the exercise of powers under the proposed legislation is subjected to proper oversight by the Courts.

Mr Speaker, the proposals in this Bill are unique. The Government's approach to countering fake news is different from other countries. And in my view, different in a positive way. Rather than requiring all originators of fake news to immediately take down the questionable content, which is what Germany has done, this Bill focuses on ensuring that facts are stated accurately and that readers are aware of the inaccuracies on a timely basis. I hope that through this, our society will grow to be more media literate over time.

But media literacy cannot be achieved just from this Bill alone. All levels of society will need to partner with one another to make this happen. Social media sites must recognise that they owe a responsibility to ensure that their content is factually accurate. But that in itself is a big challenge as some of the existing models thrive on news virality. The public must also arm ourselves with the necessary skills to decipher between what is real and what is fake. The Government has done much in recent months on public engagement and I hope that such efforts continue unabated.

Mr Speaker, let me conclude by saying that fake news is not a new phenomenon. History provides many examples of misinformation being used for malicious purposes. What is new, is the advent of technologies that help to spread such fake news at a rate faster than ever before.

This Bill therefore provides us with new tools, new measures to fight against deliberate online falsehoods and manipulation. Things that aim to harm our society. The Government must be able to take swift action. The Government should have the powers to take swift action. Ministers with the domain expertise must be able to be in a position to speedily conclude whether a statement of fact is false and what course of action is in the public interest.

Nothing stops the original author nor the platform nor anyone else from commenting on the original post or the evidence provided by the Minister, or the Correction Direction itself. If Ministers cannot intervene early, in a calibrated manner, falsehoods can quickly erupt into violence, as we have seen in many other countries, which will then warrant more drastic measures for us to take. And when that happens, damage, some of which may be irreversible, would have been done. And that to me, will indeed be chilling. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Minister Ong Ye Kung.

5.18 pm

The Minister for Education (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Speaker, Sir, when Mr Melvin Yong said that we need better media literacy, I was bracing myself that he would say, "So, we need MOE to teach media literacy." We always hear people say that the root of any problem in the world is education.

That aside, the ambit of this law has little to do with my Ministry. But since I received a letter from concerned academics, I thought I should speak at this debate. As of the afternoon of 6 May, as reported by Assoc Prof Walter Theseira earlier on, the letter was signed by 124 academics. We did not do any database check, but to the best of MOE's knowledge, 71 are foreign academics based in foreign universities and 52 are Singaporeans – 25 based in foreign universities outside of Singapore and 27 based in local Universities. There is one signatory who is a foreign academic based in a local University.

My colleagues from MCI and MinLaw have offered to meet with the academics who signed the letter. The offer has not been formally taken up yet, but I understand many of them have attended the dialogue sessions with Minister Shanmugam, Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong as well as Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary. The three of them have been visiting Universities and conducting talks and I hope that our three public office-holders (POHs) have largely assuaged their concerns.

Today, I will first explain how hard, or rather how impossible it is, for academic research to run afoul of POFMA. Second, I will comment on what I think the academics or at least some of them, are really worried about. I will end my speech with a summary in Chinese.

I have been sitting here listening to the debate, and I think we have, unfortunately, started to obfuscate what the core matter is about. We started to come out with scenarios where we think falsehoods or truths are somewhat fuzzy. We talked about the balance between the Executive and the Judiciary, we talked about fast versus slow processes in the Courts. But really, what is this issue about? The issue is that we really have a serious threat from online falsehoods.

Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean in the Members' lounge was just telling me that when he was young, he remembered when the racial riots were happening, there was a big headline on The Straits Times saying "Stop Rumour Mongering" because that was fuelling the riots. Real public harm. Just imagine today, with the tools in the hands of people with malicious intent, it is one thousand times easier to come up with a falsehood. It will spread thousands of times faster. Thousands of times broader and wider. Thousands of times more serious impact. This is what we are really dealing with.

First, let me reiterate, the two gates through which any falsehood must pass before it can be corrected or removed by this Bill. One, what is put up online must be a statement of fact that is false. Two, it must cause public harm. When these two gates are crossed, then the falsehood may be corrected or removed by a "Direction". "Directions" are not criminal punishments. It is just a Correction. Let us put things in perspective here, all that we are debating about concerning the powers of Ministers, it is the power to initiate a correction of an online falsehood that has gone viral and has public harm. That is what we are debating about.

For there to be criminal liability, a third gate has to be crossed, which is that the propagator of the falsehood must have knowledge that it is false and it is harmful. So, there is malicious intent. That is for the Ministers and the Ministries to justify, prosecutors to initiate and the Courts to decide on the verdict.

What kind of online activities would pass the two gates? Let me give a few examples. I was thinking that I can cut down on the examples because I expected many Members to be to be citing many, but given the examples I am hearing, let us get back to what are the examples we are talking about.

Two years ago in Germany, there was a report that a mob of 50 "Arab-looking" men, assaulted women on New Year’s Eve in downtown Frankfurt. The story went viral. But when the German police investigated, they found no evidence of this mysterious assault. The newspaper eventually conceded that the attacks described in the article did not take place, they apologised and took down the article from all its platforms. But more people had read and remembered the falsehood in the original article than the clarification. The damage was done; public sentiments shifted, society becomes more tense, political discourse altered.

We are familiar with Brexit, during the campaign on the referendum, a falsehood was going around that Turkey was going to join the EU and Britain would be flooded with immigrants from Turkey. The falsehood might have well affected the outcome of the referendum and the fate of the United Kingdom.

It will get worse as technology continues to advance. You can now use AI to make fake videos of a real person – "deep fakes". Mr Vikram Khanna wrote about it in The Straits Times today. You can just google "Obama deepfake" and you will find a video of the former US President – I tried, I found it – delivering a speech with swear words and all, which he, of course, did not make. You can also find a deep fake video of President Donald Trump telling an audience in Belgium that they should to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, a speech which he did not make.

But you do not even need to deploy sophisticated technology to spread false information. In 1998, Dr Andrew Wakefield published a controversial study that linked the MMR vaccine, which protects against measles, mumps and rubella, to autism. It circulated widely. Although the study has been totally debunked, it helped fuel a dangerous movement of vaccine scepticism and refusal around the world. It was later discovered that Wakefield had falsified the data and had been paid by lawyers involved in an MMR lawsuit. The paper was retracted only in 2010, 10 years after its publication. The paper remains severely harmful as children who are unvaccinated could lose their lives.

Deliberate lies, connivance, impersonations, incitement of unrest and societal anger and turmoil. This is what we are dealing with. This is the world of online falsehoods and manipulations that this Bill is targeting. In contrast, what is research? It is about experiments, gathering data, testing hypotheses, publishing findings, discovering how the world works and having work reviewed by peers and following a strict discipline and a strict process.

We should distinguish between two kinds of research. The first kind is an empirical-based approach to understanding how the world and nature works. This is what researchers are doing in A*STAR, and in faculties such as engineering and medicine in our Universities. They are figuring out how the human genome works, finding new cures for diseases, ways to cut down carbon emission, developing new materials for building and bridges, inventing new models with new AI technology and algorithms to have sharper predictive powers.

In all these fields, scientists are questioning truths all the time. It is an endless quest for knowledge, where our understanding of nature and life are constantly proven and then unproven. Newton’s laws of motion, which used to be widely accepted, are proven now to be only partially true. Scientists have also proven that time, which we used to believe it is constant, actually can be stretched, it can be compressed, it can be bent.

One branch of empirically-based research is data science. I recently came across a book called Kiasunomics written by three NUS researchers. It is a popular version of a series of papers they have published. They gathered vast amount of data – including getting a lot of data from Government departments and agencies – and tested many hypotheses. They found that after the removal of the KTM Railway, the price of HDB flats around the railway line went up significantly. They found out that yellow taxis have fewer accidents than blue taxis. Households use more water when there was haze and so on. They went on to explain why. It is very possible that one day, someone may gather more data and refute their findings.

Does that mean POFMA will "criminalise" those researchers whose discoveries and theories were proven wrong or partially true? So, will Newton be caught by POFMA because his laws are now only partially true? Or the three authors of Kiasunomics will be persecuted if one day, if blue taxis have more accidents than yellow taxis? Or will POFMA "criminalise" research that is trying to disprove a theory or a body of knowledge that is already well-established?

The answer is no. That is simply not the business of POFMA. Any attempts to apply POFMA to empirically-based, natural sciences research, will fail at the first gate I mentioned. There are two gates; it will fail at the first gate. At the first gate, you ask, "Is there falsehood?" No, because researchers used real data and observations to draw their conclusions. Even if the data may not be accurate because the experiment was not well conducted, the data collected is not reproducible or incomplete, there is no falsehood as defined by POFMA.

One Member mentioned that, 15 years ago, two labour economists got into trouble because they used partial data and concluded nine out of 10 jobs in Singapore went to foreigners. So, now, let us apply POFMA's two gates to this case. First gate, was there falsehood? There was none. They used real data, it was not falsehood. The real data was incomplete but they did not fabricate the data. Second, was there public harm? I do not think there was any harm such as riots, or very heightened tensions. It will fail at both gates. Incidentally, after I heard that speech, I did a check on the two academics, both of them are still teaching in LKY's School of Public Policy and I understand they are now both Singaporeans. They applied for citizenship after the incident.

Second gate, is there public harm? I do not believe good, honest research can cause public harm.

I have talked about the first type of research. The second type of research is based on opinion, philosophy, interpretation of history, cultural bias, geographical context and so on. This is mainly practised as a strand of researchers in the humanities. Instead of empirical data, they use methods that are primarily critical and interpretive to substantiate their hypotheses and arguments.

I enjoyed reading the books of an author called Yuval Noah Harari. He is an Israeli historian and a tenured professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His two bestselling books Sapiens and Homo Deus, I read both of them, he cites some empirical findings, but most of all, he describes his deductions, thoughts and opinions. He gave his take on the origins and purpose of religion in holding complex societies together. He has an expansionary definition of religion that many will find offensive actually, and he postulated that humans will achieve near immortality and God-like powers, not too far into the future.

Some of the works of humanities scholars, like Yuval Noah Harari, can be controversial, highly debatable, even offensive to some. But they cannot be subject to POFMA. In fact, they would not even reach the two gates of POFMA. Their conclusions are in the form of hypotheses, theories and opinions that are not covered by the Bill. I am sure Minister Shanmugam will explain why and how. This Bill is about truthfulness of "facts" – did the men really assault the women, did the President really give that speech, was Turkey really joining the EU? Those were the statements of facts that concern POFMA.

Let me wrap up this section of my speech and I have to talk about Galileo – cannot resist – which quite a few Members talked about it. Actually, it is an excellent case study of how research upset conventional wisdom. I want to talk about how he was treated then and how he would be treated today under POFMA should such research happen today. Of course, today we know that the Earth goes round the Sun. But at that time, the belief was that the Sun goes round the Earth and it was an important concept central to the power of the Church and the Roman authorities.

Galileo wanted to prove the reverse. So, he built his own telescope. He spent many lonely days and nights staring into the sky, collected data and proved that it is the other way round, that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

But despite his empirical methods, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira talked about the Inquisition, so his challenge was not kindly taken by the Roman authorities. Other astronomers came up with their observations and data to prove that the Sun indeed revolved around the Earth. He was sentenced to indefinite imprisonment and kept under house arrest until his death.

What if something like that were to happen today, involving a question to which we have no answers, or we thought we had an answer, and a researcher comes up with something that challenges deeply held views or shared reality, as Assoc Prof Theseira mentioned?

In our context, I can assure the House, that if it is empirical research, we will stay true to science and empirical evidence. We have always been, sometimes to a fault. And if it is an opinion-based research, we will have a vigorous public debate. Under both scenarios, POFMA does not apply in such a discourse.

The only way POFMA comes in is if the research uses false observations and data to start with, you fabricated the data, which prevents public discourse from taking place properly. In which case, such work I do not think it can pass the academic and professional standards of any decent university or research institute.

Mr Speaker, Sir, research that challenges conventional wisdom and shared belief is happening as we speak, in ways, I think, more significant than when Galileo was working on the Sun and the Earth. Quantum scientists have discovered that a very small particle can appear at two or more places at the same time until you look at it. So it is a bit mind-boggling. You are not really there until I look at you. The score of the football match is not four-zero until I look at it. So, it did not really happen. That is too simplistic a way to put it, but they are questioning reality as we know it.

In economics, the post Global Financial Crisis debate continues, on the efficacy of fiscal, monetary policies and quantitative easing. Researchers are questioning the causal relationship between unemployment and the skills gap, and if a nation’s success should also include measures beyond GDP to include ecological sustainability and social equity. So, big questions are undergoing research now.

These works challenge existing beliefs in far more profound ways than any memes, blog post, video, opinion piece in the newspapers shared online, which is the practical focus of POFMA. These research are on-going, welcomed and embraced. If any of our researchers make such a breakthrough in our understanding of the world, rather than being persecuted, as Mr Cedric Foo said, they are more likely to be celebrated and maybe even accorded a National Day award! This Government will always honour empirical and evidence-based research.

Let me try to address what I think some of the academics are really concerned about. I may be wrong, but I do not think it is about research. They are worried that POFMA will be used to stifle political discourse in Singapore. Because not all researchers are just researchers; most researchers may also be activists. Nothing wrong with that. But it is in their activist role that some of these academics are voicing their concerns about POFMA.

So, there is a request for an explicit carve-out for opinions, criticisms, satires and so on, in the Bill. I want to point out that we cannot conflate research with activism. I read a Facebook post by Dr Derek da Cunha and I thought he put it very well. He observed that some academics "spend every other week banging away on the subject online and offline because his or her motivation is to effect change. This isn’t even a case of any contentiousness over what is, or is not, the 'truth'."

He added, "Instead, it brings up the question: what is the appropriate role of an academic? Any contention that academics should not adhere to boundaries or parameters, but such boundaries or parameters should exist for everyone else, might be an unreasonable proposition."

The same point was made by a Straits Times Forum letter writer who asked "Where is the line between exercising academic freedom to pursue truth and wisdom, and hiding behind academic freedom to fulfil partisan political and socio-economic agendas? Does having academic freedom mean one has carte blanche to communicate irresponsibly and without credible evidence?"

Let me put it quite plainly. Any activist will not be caught by POFMA if you express an opinion or even hurl criticisms at the Government. The law treats all activists equally – whether you are an academic or a man or woman on the street. It does not target academics. You are as free as an ordinary citizen to comment on current affairs or critique the Government.

Conversely, any activist – whether you are an academic or a man or woman on the street – who uses the online medium to spread falsehoods and harm society, will come under POFMA. POFMA offers no special shield to academics either.

But the law aside, in this era of free-for-all communications and interactions, public discourse is becoming more rigorous. Here is where things may get a little bit different for academics.

Academics are well-respected members of society. We hold academics to "conduct professorial" – high standards of integrity, in their teaching, their research, and the validity of their views put forward in public. This is especially so when they speak or make social media posts on current affairs while bearing the title of a professor in a publicly-funded university.

So, you can put out an opinion that Singapore’s growth model has failed. You can say meritocracy in Singapore has failed. You can say the education system is elitist, our social welfare does not work and it does more harm than good. POFMA will not apply to you because that is your opinion. But in the interest of open debate and given your stature in society and position in a publicly funded university, please expect Government agencies, if we do not agree with you, to put out the data and put out our arguments to convince the public otherwise. If that has a chilling effect, please chill.

The same and, perhaps, even higher expectations apply to my Cabinet colleagues and I. Whatever we say needs to be well thought out, set the tone for society, and be in the best interest of our people. Today, if anyone of us puts forward a view in a speech, during a dialogue or in an Instagram or Facebook post, and if the public does not agree with us, they will speak up and give us a piece of their mind. And we have to consider those views and re-evaluate our position. The interaction will get more active and rigorous. It is part and parcel of modern governance. When it comes to our decisions and actions, the scrutiny will be even more intense.

We want this interaction and exchange of ideas and opinions to be free of malicious falsehoods which poison the atmosphere and mislead the discourse. POFMA enhances, and not diminishes, democratic public discourse. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Speaker, Sir, I shall continue my speech in Mandarin.

Fake news has been in existence since ancient times. For example, during the Jin Dynasty in China, the Qin army from the north sent their troops south to attack Eastern Jin. As the two troops battled at the Fei River, the troops from Eastern Jin suggested for the Qin troops to move back, to allow the Jin troops to cross the river, so that the two troops could battle to the death. As the vanguards of the Qin army moved back, Jin soldiers who had infiltrated this group started shouting: "The Qin army has lost! The Qin army has lost!" Amazingly, the Qin troops believed these words and thought that the command to move backwards was a sign of defeat. This led to a sharp drop in the Qin troops' morale, eventually resulting in the Qin army’s defeat and retreat.

The Qin army was filled with anxiety and panic, and every movement in the surrounding plants made them suspect that it was the Jin army lying in ambush. That was how the Chinese Idiom "草木皆兵Cao Mu Jie Bing" (every plant is an enemy soldier) came about. There can never be too much deceit in times of war – this has been so since ancient times; falsehoods have been used to affect the emotions of societies and people.

Singapore is no exception. However, the falsehoods of today are different from those of the past. Firstly, the channels of falsehoods have increased: through the Internet and the widespread usage of mobile devices. Secondly, the speed of spreading falsehoods has increased: a survey on social media conducted by MIT found that falsehoods can reach 20,000 individuals in a day, but facts and the truth can only reach 10,000 in three days. That is, falsehoods can spread six times faster than the truth. Thirdly, falsehoods have also become more destructive.

Three years ago, during the United Kingdom's referendum on exiting the European Union (that is, Brexit), the Internet was flooded with falsehoods, such as "Turkey is becoming part of the EU, which will cause large numbers of immigrants to enter the UK." Such intentional spread of falsehoods aimed to mislead the voters and affect the voting results.

Apart from politics, falsehoods can disrupt the everyday lives of people. Eight years ago, when Northeast Japan was hit by a massive earthquake which damaged a nuclear power plant, there was a rumour circulating on social media that salt could guard against radiation exposure. This caused people to rush to the supermarkets and buy all the available salt supplies.

Nearer to home, in 2017, there was a rumour that a hawker in Geylang was selling satay made of dog and cat meat. In the same year, there were also accusations that some local supermarkets were selling rice made of plastic. Fortunately, there were timely clarifications for these two incidents and they did not lead to more panic and hysteria.

As technology advances, this problem will worsen. In recent years, artificial intelligence has developed the "Deepfake" capability, in which computers can be used to combine and superimpose existing images and videos and mimic a person's actions and speech. Such fabrication has frightening risks and implications. China has decided to ban the use of "Deepfake" technology.

We cannot stop the advancement of technology, but neither can we evade the problems that come along with it. We have the responsibility to find solutions to rectify these problems. This Bill has clear goals and defined boundaries. For each of the examples I mentioned, the Bill can be used to request online platforms or media companies to issue corrections. Legal action can then be taken against those who spread such falsehoods with malicious intent.

There are academics who worry that the Bill will stifle freedom of speech or even hamper academic research – there is no need to worry. The Bill is only applicable to the examples mentioned; covering facts, and not opinions. Unless the research paper made use of falsified data or falsehoods, there is no need to worry.

Furthermore, the Bill targets the writers of fake news and not the people who spread it. So, there is no need to worry about inadvertently sharing mistaken information. However, I hope that everyone can be vigilant at all times and verify the information they receive, before sharing them with family and friends.

In summary, there is actually nothing new under the sun but, in this Internet era, strange things seem to be surfacing all the time. This Bill may only have an effect on a small amount of falsehoods out there, but I believe that the falsehoods that it targets are those that pose the greatest danger and have negative impact.

Globally, falsehoods have already negatively impacted many democratic systems and the lives of people. The greater reason for tabling this Bill is to safeguard the lives of our people against such threats.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, we know that online falsehoods have affected election and referendum results, twisted public sentiments, heightened public tensions, societal tensions and altered the political discourse. A big worry of the modern world is whether democracy can withstand this onslaught. And indeed, this is a major challenge of our times.

Today, the odds are stacked against those of us who are trying to uphold institutions – all of us in this House. The balance of power is asymmetrical, heavily weighted in favour of those with malicious intentions. It is far easier to make a sensational falsehood viral, than a technical correction. It is far easier to use bots to spread falsehoods, than to use a speech and use traditional media coverage.

I give you an example. In the recent shooting in New Zealand, the shooter had a live Facebook feed for 17 minutes. Let us juxtapose that video against the standards under POFMA. Is there public harm, as a second gate? Definitely. Did the perpetrator possess knowledge of the harm, as a third gate? Certainly. Is there falsehood? There is not. For it was live; it was what took place. So, POFMA cannot enforce a takedown of this feed. In the end, it was taken down, not by the force of law, but by Facebook itself under a lot of pressure.

Relative to the explosion of online capabilities that is now presented to those with malicious intent, the ambit of this law is not large. When online falsehoods are perpetrated, it only gives the Government legislative powers for a surgical and judicious insertion of additional facts, through a Correction order. And that is as far as executive powers of Ministers go. It is not the omnipresent, draconian, nuclear weapon, infinity gauntlet snap that some people make it out to be.

While small, POFMA is a necessary response to this tectonic technological change, to protect democratic public discourse which we cherish.

Let me raise one last point. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira talked about the need for shared reality for any society and acknowledged the need for that. For democracy and constructive discourse to work, there must be a common understanding of the underlying facts of the country – what happened and what did not. And I am glad that the Member acknowledged that.

Some of these facts shape the character and common ethos of a nation. Today, the understanding of shared reality, with Science and History, is no longer like the 17th century. I think we have a large body of scientific evidence and we have a good record of history. It is no longer like Galileo's time.

So, in Germany, the Holocaust happened. The Germans had lived under a dark period of Nazism, and that is an undeniable fact. Denying it is actually illegal in Germany. In China, the May Fourth Movement happened 100 years ago. The Revolution of 1949 happened. And those events shaped modern China. The US liberated the slaves and went through a devastating civil war. That happened. In Singapore, we are a small, multi-cultural island state. We faced Communist threats and were thrusted into independence. Those events happened.

Today, researchers continue to study and interpret those events: what caused them, what they represented, what is their impact today. But they cannot deny that they happened and continue to shape the character and psyche of societies today.

A society that holds onto certain truths is a social necessity, a binding force in politics, and a pre-requisite for civil discussions. Lose these and the country loses part of its soul. Otherwise, democracy becomes a marketplace of merchants peddling forgeries. Only by holding onto certain truths, are we able to continue to collectively identify the issues that are important to us, the options and paths we can take, and decide the way forward, without the lies and without the manipulations.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira said this is a vote of conscience. It is indeed a vote of conscience because look at the tectonic shifts that we are faced with. Technology has fundamentally changed society, changed the political discourse. It is changing politics and modern society as we know it. All governments around the world need new rules, new laws and new mechanisms to deal with this tectonic change. It is a vote of conscience. Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

5.52 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Speaker, I have one clarification for Minister Ong Ye Kung. Earlier, in his speech, he referred to the case which I cited about the two economies 15 years ago. And according to his analysis, he mentioned that in order to qualify as an actionable POFMA untruth, there are two gates to pass. And his assessment was that in that scenario, gate one was not passed because there was no falsehood to begin with.

If I recall the facts of that case, the economists have relied on some data which later the Government said was incomplete and they had asserted based on the data that out of four jobs that was created, only one job went to a Singapore resident and three jobs went to the intake of foreigners. So, I am wanting some clarifications because when you look at that statement alone about job creation, it appears on one reading to be an assertion of fact which later on, the Government came to correct and said it is not correct. In actual fact, out of 10 jobs, nine went to residents. And one reading of POFMA, it could be argued that gate one has been passed because there is an assertion of some facts which are not correct. And gate two, possibly may be passed as well because this may diminish confidence in the Government in job creation.

So, I would like the Minister to clarify again, which is very helpful, I think, earlier, but I think we need more explanation about how he sees the case and why POFMA would not apply. Does it mean that if researchers conclude facts based on incomplete data, that would not come under the POFMA even though factually, it has to be corrected?

Mr Ong Ye Kung: Yes. I got your point. I am prepared to explain this and have it recorded in the Hansard. Their conclusion that most of the jobs went to foreigners, that is the conclusion of the study. What they based that conclusion on, was on data, although incomplete, was not fabricated. It was not falsified. So, there was no falsification and no falsehood involved. And as for the conclusion that most jobs went to foreigners – that was their conclusion and their opinion which is also not part of POFMA. So, so long as researchers abide by research discipline, I do not see how they can be caught by POFMA unless they fabricated data.

Mr Speaker: Prof Lim Sun Sun.

Prof Lim Sun Sun: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his effort to assure the academic community. I just have one point of clarification as well as some feedback.

In the first instance, I think the Minister mentioned the distinction between the empirical disciplines as well as humanities which he said is not so empirical but is interpretive and critical. So, I do not think my Humanities and Social Science colleagues will forgive me if I let you get away with saying Humanities and Social Science research is not empirical. So, that would just be a point of clarification.

The second point actually relates to the use of the term "public harm" which I think at this point in the discussion is somewhat confusing because we have actually been discussing the Bill which uses the term "public interest". So, I think that that may actually create more issues of contention because there is a great deal of academic research that while being of public interest may not necessarily generate public harm.

The third point is actually to deal with hon Member Dr Intan's suggestion that we should actually set up in Universities, possibly, committees that actually help us to review whether or not these are actually falsehoods that have been made by academics perhaps unwittingly, and that these committees can help to advise the Ministers. While on the one hand I am sympathetic to that argument as a fellow academic, on the other hand, I think the very establishment as well as existence of such committees will, in fact, seem to underline the lack of academic freedom which I think would be an unhealthy signal to send.

Mr Ong Ye Kung: First, being a quantitative economist myself, I very much welcome the Humanities to use more data and empirical evidence. That is one. Two, on the Member's point on public interest versus public harm is taken. I have given some illustrations of what I think is the measure of public harm before POFMA kicks in, and I am sure my colleagues will clarify the concept further.

Third, on committees to decide what are falsehoods within Universities. I think they already exist because the entire discipline of doing good research, comprising peer review, academic committees and so on, already make sure that all academics do their work properly using proper data, do not fabricate data, do not fabricate facts. When you stick to that, I do not see how POFMA will catch you.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister. I am going to drag you back to the 2003 example. The reason why I am doing that is because I think it is still kind of fresh in the minds of many academics in Singapore about how we interface with society and with the state. And I should declare that I am an NUS professor.

Let me seek two clarifications. The first one is: I am not so sure that the characterisation that what the two economists said would not have come under POFMA because there was some kind of correction that was done in 2003. And I am going to just read off the Channel NewsAsia article which quotes Minister of Manpower then, Dr Ng Eng Hen who said, "If your figures are wrong, it is irresponsible, unprofessional to put up those figures. In this particular case, the NTU report, their findings are way off the mark. I do not know how they got their figures and what their methods are", said Dr Ng. And he added that, "The NTU academics had not consulted the Manpower Ministry or the Department of Statistics." So, that is as good as a correction, I think, in a pre-POFMA era. And after that, there was a big controversy and the issue blew up and all the academics knew that these two academics were being corrected by Minister. It was a "high level rebuke". That was the phrase that was used in the media article.

And my second clarification is that, I can appreciate, the Minister's more open view about academic research because he is the Minister for Education. This is his domain expertise. But here, as in this case with the labour economists, they were commenting on something that has to do, in terms of public interest and has to do with the Ministry of Manpower. So, the Minister of Manpower reacts to their remarks, right? So, it is a different Ministry that is involved in evaluating the academic research. So, is this going to be a kind of blanket rule or norm within the Cabinet, that when it comes to academics, consult the Minister for Education first.

Mr Ong Ye Kung: I have no intention to re-open the 2003 case and go through the data to see whether there is any falsified data. I think that is the past. But it is obvious that the Manpower Minister then did not agree with the conclusion of the research report. That does not equal to it being caught under POFMA today. That is why I differentiated between research and activism; that, even when POFMA does not apply to research, please expect us, if we do not agree with the outcome, to present other data, present our arguments and try to correct public perceptions, and try to convince the public otherwise.

That is political discourse. It cannot be that just because it is a research piece, we all have to shut up. It is not in the spirit of POFMA, nor the political discourse that we want.

On the point that I am Minister for Education so I am slightly more open whether all these cases concerning research will go through me, I think it should have my inputs, based on how the law is written today. But based on the Workers' Party's suggestion, I am afraid the decisions will all go to the Courts.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Thank you, Speaker. First, really, let me congratulate the Minister for Education on that speech. I really think we should actually send it out to all our academics because I think it was a really good policy statement, besides POFMA.

Just one clarification. I think we all accept the need for the Government to rebut robustly research it does not agree with, whether from academics or activists. What I am concerned about – which I talked a bit in my speech earlier – is that there has been a trend sometimes of Ministries using language in their rebuttal that implies falsehood. I think when you look at the details of the case, it is not always the case for all of these, that there is really a dispute about the facts. Sometimes, it is more about the conclusion. And I would hope that he would have some views on, maybe asking his colleagues or Ministries to tighten up a bit in their language, so that people do not inadvertently think things are false when they are actually not.

Mr Ong Ye Kung: I take your point. That is one value of this discourse that we have in this Chamber, that we are now a lot more careful in defining what is a disagreement and what is a falsehood. I think this law crystallised it. And we should be more disciplined in future.

Mr Speaker: Mr Mohamed Irshad.

6.02 pm

Mr Mohamed Irshad (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, after two years in the making, the POFMA Bill is timely, in light of global events and trends we are witnessing today. The tabling of the Bill comes after regulatory moves around the world such as Germany, France and, more recently, Australia. This Bill is comprehensive, well considered, globally researched, and above all, publicly consulted and reviewed. The Bill commendably sets out to protect Singaporeans in a highly polarised world against the threat of online falsehood.

As highlighted by the hon Minister, globally, we are witnessing countries grappling with the problem of online falsehoods which aims to do many things, including interfering in elections as well as democratic processes, undermining public institutions, exploiting fault lines, sowing discord amongst racial and religious communities and ultimately weakening countries through national security threats – both real and imagined.

Therefore, it is important that we do not politicise the Bill and make sure that we take an objective stand. The Bill is one that is of immense significance to safeguard Singapore's future, especially in today's world where there is an overload of information on a multitude of platforms that threatens to undermine much of our traditional forms of communication and reliable information sources.

Today, I wish to speak on two areas in relation to the proposed Bill: number one, safeguarding racial and religious harmony; and secondly, on technological trends in disseminating online falsehood.

On safeguarding racial and religious harmony. Last year, I presented at the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods (DOFs) representing my interfaith non-profit organisation Roses of Peace. I shared that given the destructive force of online falsehood in the digital age, it has the potential to exploit our social fault lines and can undermine our social cohesion. If not countered, it can erode the multi-racial and multi-religious fabric of our society and our forefathers who have fought to achieve this and preserve this.

There needs to be a clear action of plan involving a whole-of-nation effort to combat online falsehoods or fake news. As the hon Minister for Law and Home Affairs had described in his Select Committee public hearing last year, tackling fake news will require a multi-pronged approach which takes into consideration effective legislation and Government policy, as well as efforts by corporations, non-profit organisations, religious organisations, civil society and ordinary citizens.

It is important for ordinary citizens to be equipped with the knowledge and tools to discern and deal with fake news. Only when individuals are able to take ownership and understand the consequence of deliberate online falsehoods, are we able to safeguard our social well-being and be a more resilient society.

Mr Speaker, allow me to share several examples of online falsehoods manifesting in inciting real world violence.

In 2014, Myanmar witnessed two days of violence leaving two dead and dozens injured with mosques being burned. It was caused by a falsehood from a Buddhist woman who was paid to make false rape claims against two Muslim brothers.

In 2016, 12 Buddhist temples in northern Sumatra of Indonesia were plundered and burned down by a Muslim mob in 24 hours with billions of rupiah in losses. Again, it was caused by a falsehood that a Chinese woman had complained about noise from a mosque threw items at it, expelled the prayer leader and disrupted prayers.

Just last year, in 2018, Sri Lanka witnessed widespread ethnic violence with mosques burned, people attacked and the government declaring a State of Emergency and temporarily banning social media platforms. It is the result of falsehood. The falsehood insinuated that the Muslim minority were trying to sterilise the Sinhalese majority.

More recently, the tragic mosque shooting in Christchurch was socially engineered for virality and maximum reach via live-streaming. The video was viewed just less than 200 times during the live broadcast. No users reported the video during the live broadcast. Including the views during the live broadcast, the video was viewed about 4,000 times in total before being removed from Facebook.

However, according to Facebook, in the first 24 hours, it was removed about 1.5 million times, copies of this video of the attack of the attack globally. More than 1.2 million of those videos were blocked at upload and were therefore prevented from being seen on their services.

What I have just outlined above are serious and quick adverse consequences of viral and false information. We would be naïve to assume that Singapore would be immune to this. Therefore, when one considers what is the right decision-making body, to move quickly to counter-act the effects and spread of false information, speed and effectiveness must be paramount. That is precisely what the Select Committee, with representation from both sides of the House, had accepted.

I believe, in circumstances where false information is undermining Singapore's public interest, it is the Executive which should be empowered to act. They can do so swiftly and decisively to protect Singaporeans against such falsehoods.

A 2014 analysis by the Pew Research Centre found Singapore to be the world's most religiously diverse nation. Despite our diversity, Singapore has enjoyed peace and religious harmony for over 50 years since independence. Hence, we cannot take any chances and take the stability and security we enjoy for granted.

On technological trends in disseminating online falsehood. In today's world, online falsehoods are weaponised to be used against countries by state and non-state actors. The online information space and the social media are a key battlefield in a new conception of warfare. Now there is no need for war to be declared with the blurring of boundaries between wartime and peacetime. New dynamics brought about by technological advancements is an area of concern for any Governments looking to legislation to combat online falsehood.

Justice ministers in three German states have proposed using anti-botnet legislation to crack down on automated social-media accounts, or "bots", which spread online falsehood. Botnets are suspected to have engineered voter sentiments during recent events such as the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum and the 2016 US elections. As technology is always ahead of regulations, we should develop the ability to respond swiftly and robustly before they can cause harm to Singaporeans.

In an information-rich world, the most effective response to disinformation is literacy. As highlighted by the hon Education Minister, media literacy is essential for end users to be able to spot obvious fakes. In future, artificial-intelligence-powered solutions may help us distinguish high quality news sources and content from bogus ones, and even spot potential political motivations behind the propagation of certain news.

One area of concern I would like to raise in this house is the issue of deep fakes which will increasingly become a problem, as highlighted by the Minister earlier. Political speech and even imagery can easily be manipulated at low cost and with professional quality. In order to successfully tackle the problem, I urge the Government to keep an eye out for emerging disruptive technologies such as deep learning and generative adversarial networks (GANs), which make it possible to manipulate images and videos so well that it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish false from authentic ones. In fact, apps like FakeApp and Lyrebird have made the production of "deep fakes" accessible to anyone.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, it is very difficult to write a Bill like POFMA. It needs to be comprehensive and extremely well considered if we are to protect Singaporeans as well as their rights to freedom of choice in the digital age. I am confident that the Government will place peace, harmony and safety of Singapore at its heart and do the best as Singaporeans and for Singaporeans and be counted upon to steward these considerable powers in a fair, consistent and thoughtful manner – consistent with our democratic values and our duty to protect Singaporeans from the ill effects of online falsehoods. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

6.12 pm

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the aim to protect Singapore from deliberate online falsehoods that could undermine the democratic foundations of our society is acceptable and good. But this POFMA Bill gives the government of the day massive targeted powers that go far beyond this remit and is therefore not acceptable and not good for Singapore in the long run.

It has been said POFMA balances the right and utility of responsible free speech with the necessity for speedy action to prevent the subversion of society in the informational age. I disagree. In my view, this Bill is severely imbalanced.

Speed is a key premise for POFMA. Speed is distance over time, and the Government has chosen to maximise speed, giving itself great powers to cross vast distances in a short amount of time.

But this need for speed can have severe detrimental effects for the society, and the state itself, if it is not properly checked. I shall deal with three issues: one, the problem with the definition of falsehoods in the hands of the Executive; two, the problem with the Government defending public confidence in the Government itself by force; and three, the Government choosing between a legacy and a Trojan Horse.

Ministers deciding on facts and falsehoods. The first issue concerns the definition of falsehoods in this Bill. The definition in section 2 is double-barrelled. First, a falsehood has to be a statement of fact. Subsection 2(a) states that "a statement of fact is a statement which a reasonable person seeing, hearing or otherwise perceiving it would consider to be a representation of fact". This definition rests on the figure of the reasonable person. I just want to note a paradox here. As elaborated by the Minister for Law in his opening speech, the problem we face today is that online falsehoods have undermined public discourse and eroded precisely this figure of the reasonable person.

Whether a statement is a fact or is an opinion goes to the heart of this piece of legislation, as it provides the scope for which statements would be covered by this law. If the reasonable person does not quite exist anymore, how do we determine if a statement is indeed a statement of fact and not an opinion? The fact that the Minister for Law had to go to great lengths to clarify with detailed examples on what are statements of fact and what are statements of opinion show that this distinction between fact and opinion has significantly blurred in public discourse.

It is well and fine if a statement of fact is an established matter in jurisprudence, but we are talking about placing the powers in the Executive here. If the reasonable person in the juridical definition of the statement of fact has indeed faded away, how would the Executive, specifically the Ministers, being not the Judiciary steeped in matters of jurisprudence, be able to distinguish between a statement of fact and a statement of opinion in a speedy manner?

This is an important issue, since a wrong application of a correction directive on a statement of opinion can be a miscarriage of justice and even affect electoral results. Ministers have to be extremely cautious even at the first step of the process, to determine whether a statement is a statement of fact or a statement of opinion. The only resolution I can see is that Ministers will have to consult the Minister for Law on this determination and this would take time. Perhaps as much time as it would ought have taken to decide on a Correction order.

Let me come now to the second part of the definition of falsehoods, which has itself four sub-parts to it. Sub-section 2(b) states that, "a statement is false if it is false" – that sounds a bit tautological but I think it can stand – "false or misleading, whether wholly or in part, and whether on its own or in the context in which it appears". The definition of falsehoods should be simply based on fact. A fact is something that is known to be true because of existing information or proven to be so by current evidence. Conversely, a statement of fact is false when it can be shown to be not true by information or evidence, whether existing or new. To add the term "misleading" here is dangerous, as it opens up the judgement of truth to multiple interpretations of connotations and implications.

Furthermore, how can we justifiably and reasonably make people responsible for part of their statements and for statements taken out of context? By this definition, a statement can become misleading by virtue of being interpreted in the worst possible way, whether wholly or in part, whether on its own or in context. So, does this mean that the Government can take a statement I make, quote a part of it out of context, choose the worst of all the possible interpretations of the partial statement taken out of context, and then accuse me for misleading the public on a matter of public interest?

Public confidence is earned not enforced by the Government. The second issue has to do with the meaning of “public interest” in section 4. I have little quibble with the list of areas (a), (b), (c) and (e). I have reservations about (d) with regards to elections but I will focus on (f). I object to (f) which has to do with public confidence in the performance of the Government.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]

Sub-section (f) is worded as "to prevent a diminution of public confidence in the performance of any duty or function of, or in the exercise of any power by, the Government, an Organ of State, a statutory board, or a part of the Government, an Organ of State or a statutory board". I would like to ask which part of life in Singapore is not covered by this incredibly sweeping sub-definition of public interest? This sub-definition makes any disputed statement of fact that merely risks reducing some public confidence in the performance of any action by just a part of the Government and statutory boards liable to this law. This is practically any statement of fact critical of the Government.

Other than take-downs for posts that endanger our national security, foreign relations, racial and religious harmony, public safety, why is there a need for speed for all Ministers – all Ministers – to impose corrections on alleged falsehoods about the performance of the Government? Where is the sense of proportionality here? I am not saying that the Government should not act to clarify and correct widespread falsehoods that could undermine public confidence in our public institutions. I am saying that I do not see the need for speed to force a correction, as the current supposedly slow practices of correcting falsehoods already work to great effect.

Let me give two examples. The first is the case at the beginning of this year when there was a public online furore over claims that the Government had quietly raised the CPF payout eligibility age from 65 to 70 years old. This arose from a misunderstanding arising from the setting of the automatic payouts at age 70 instead of 65. I believe the automatic payouts should be set at the payout eligibility age, but that is my opinion. But factually, it was false that the Government quietly raised the payout eligibility age. This was corrected by the Government by press statements and parliamentary answers by the Minister for Manpower in response to questions from Members, which was then carried by the media. This falsehood spurred the Government to redouble their public education efforts, producing good materials to educate the public on the policies, which effectively dispelled the falsehood.

The second is the recent case accusing the Police of preferential treatment for letting off a male undergraduate for filming a woman in the shower in a NUS Hall of Residence because the student’s parents were well-connected to powerful people. This example was also cited by the Minister for Law in his speech moving the Bill. An objective press statement by the Police setting out the facts dispelled the falsehood. As a result, many were chastised by fellow online citizens for spreading baseless assumptions. Furthermore, the way the Police went about dispelling the falsehood earned praise from the public, as the Police respected the privacy of the offender and obtained permission from his family to reveal their background. Again, supposedly slow methods worked effectively.

These two examples show us that public confidence in the performance of the Government has to be earned and cannot be enforced. In these two examples, the Government is engaging Singaporeans as a partner in conversation. In these two examples, the Government is not arbitrating truths ex cathedra, using its authority to force corrections and threaten mistaken citizens with punishment. Instead, it is calmly explaining the facts and issuing additional information so that public confidence can be restored and even improved. There is no need for speed. In fact, timeliness and proportionality are key here, not speed. In fact, the responses from the Government was not slow at all, and it was not hasty too. It was timely. No need for speed.

Times have changed. The online public dwells in an information-rich environment and has its own norms and etiquette in engaging with debate and discussion. Trust in the Government is no longer built on the good performance of its duties alone, but on communication and public engagement by the Government. Educated citizens want to be engaged as peers by the Government. As such, the Government acting as a party in contentious politics with the online public will erode public confidence in the Government in the long run. Giving the Ministers and by extension the Civil Service, the powers to force corrections create an easy and speedy way out from the hard work they should be doing instead, which is earning their trust through time-consuming but ultimately fruitful engagement with the public. I do not understand why the Government would want to protect their Ministers from the test of fire of public reason.

Leave a legacy not a Trojan Horse. I now come to the third issue, which represent the Workers' Party's fundamental objection to the Bill. This law is an important one because it will set the tone for generations to come. I believe, as do my Workers' Party colleagues, that it is best to leave the arbitration of truths to the courts and not have the Executive of the Government sullied in mud-fights with the public over falsehoods, and worse, leave Singapore society wide open to abuses by a thin-skinned Executive protecting its own institutional interests. We believe that the Courts should be the place to arbitrate truths and correct falsehoods, because the courts are the natural place to do this, since this is exactly the function of the Courts: the use of reason and objective tests to judge what is true and what is false.

The Executive of the Government works with truths, but it will have its blind-spots. In other words, the Executive, like many other organisations in society and civic society as a whole, is an interested party in the determination of truths. Of course, as the Executive of the Government upholds the general interest of society, the Executive has a lot more capacity to obtain information and generate knowledge. Though it does not have the monopoly on truths, the Executive is first among equals in knowing and working with truths. It is the responsibility of the Executive to share its depositories of knowledge and truths with the public, so that together with the informed public, the Executive can correct falsehoods that could undermine our public institutions. The Government should focus on co-correction with the informed public, not the unilateral correction of falsehoods by Ministerial fiat. It is a star player in the football team, the captain even, but it should not be the referee.

I do not agree with the very notion that the Courts are the final arbiter of truth in this law, because this means that the Executive of the Government is the initial arbiter of truth. The Executive should not arbitrate the truth. It is not its place to do so. If it does, it undermines our collective faith in truths in the long run. Should the Executive exercise the powers given in this law, it will short-circuit the process of co-correction with an informed public which I just described. In doing so, the Executive forces the truth, let me say it again, forces the truth unto the public, it does not arbitrate the truth.

The argument to give the Executive these draconian powers of forcing the truth on the public is that the Executive needs speed to act quickly when it comes to exigent matters of public interest. But there is no reason why the process of applying to the Court for corrections and take-downs cannot be sped up. If the Government can speed up the appeal process in this proposed regime, and for the POHA interim protection orders, then there is no natural obstacle to do the same for the alternative process of making the Executive apply to the courts for corrections and take-downs. The need for speed in certain areas can be met without misplacing arbitral powers in the Executive.

But when it comes to public confidence in the performance of the Government, there is absolutely no need for speed. Public confidence is a long-drawn affair. Less haste, more effectiveness. Heterodoxies, which may be extremely uncomfortable for the Government in the short term, are often useful and beneficial to public institutions in the long term. Many times, the heterodoxies will not go away, and the more authorities tried to forcibly protect the orthodoxy, the stronger the heterodoxies grow. Sometimes, the heterodoxies turn out to be true, once the full force of information and evidence decide the matter.

The only right approach is continued public engagement and public education by the authorities, the efforts of which in themselves will help to shore up public confidence in public institutions.

Take for example the anti-vaccination movement. One strand of it grew from academic studies published in scholarly journals about possible association between the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis or DTP vaccine and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome or SIDS in the United States in the 1980s. These studies, because of its sensational value, were reported in the media, creating alarm among the public and feeding the anti-vaxxers. Over time, medical scientists debunked many of the studies reporting possible association and produced studies that quite conclusively show no association between the DTP vaccine and SIDS.

This enhanced scientific certainty made the public health system more robust and improved public confidence in public vaccination programmes. It could be said that society took one step back and then two steps forward, but if the authorities have intervened to suppress the heterodoxy in the name of protecting public confidence in the public health system in the first place, we would have been stuck with an orthodoxy, a believed truth, rather than one we have scientific certainty of. The DTP-SIDS myth refuses to die till today, but this has spurred public education efforts that have enhanced public awareness of the benefits of vaccination.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the legacy that each predecessor government should leave to its successor: a culture of public engagement that enhances our collective faith in truths and co-corrects falsehoods with an informed public. This POFMA Bill undermines such a legacy and leaves us with a Trojan Horse instead. It is ironic that this Government is extolling the current public confidence in it to dismiss concerns of abuse. It is saying in a circular way, "Thank you for your trust in us, trust us then to use these draconian powers to protect that trust".

What if future governments who do not deserve the trust of the public or even if this Government tomorrow, because they are not performing their duties well, seek to prop up the trust and deny public scrutiny using POFMA? There will be nothing to stop such irresponsible governments, for which corrections can pour out of POFMA as quickly as Greek troops pouring out of the Trojan Horse to seize the city of Troy. What matters to us is not the assurances of the Minister for Law of restraint and reason on his part, but the substance of the law as framed in this Bill, whether it is a charming but fatal Trojan Horse or a true legacy of protection that deepens our trust and unity as a diverse society that goes online to discuss issues.

In the same shadow of the Trojan Horse, the subsidiary argument that Ministers will face the public at the ballot box for wrong and heavy-handed actions is a terrible argument and poor justification for granting such far-reaching powers to the Executive. It is irresponsible political brinkmanship. It is saying to the citizens, “If you are not happy with my decision, I dare you to vote me out”. If Singapore reaches this stage where the Ministers have to be tested at the ballot box in this manner, then we are already seeing the erosion of trust in Government and in the public institutions. It will be too late to turn back by then.

Mr Speaker, Sir, truth and justice lie at the heart of modern political systems that are progressive and protective of the rights and livelihoods of the people. Truth and justice are not just ideals, but they are pragmatic values that pervade the performance of public institutions. Truth and justice are closely related, they imply each other. The Executive acts on truths to accomplish justice. The Judiciary enacts justice by arbitrating disputed truths. It is clear that the protection of society and the Government from online falsehoods should lie with the Courts. This is the position of the Workers’ Party. We oppose the Bill.

6.28 pm

Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. I spoke to many residents and there is consensus that fake news has a profound effect on the world. The question now is how best to deal with this issue. And it is this: How can our society best balance our individual desire to free speech, with our desire to be protected by the tremendous impact of irresponsible, or even worse still, deliberate falsehood, weaponised by the speed and reach of social media.

Many of us in this Chamber are aware that there is no single silver bullet to combat fake news, online or offline. The best we can do is to create laws, so as to create an environment for responsible speech, anchored by an informed citizenry. Indeed, when the demand for fake news diminish, no supply of fake news, no matter how large the supply, can seriously harm society.

Our desired outcome should not be just to weed out irresponsible speeches that diminish our society. We must also ensure that responsible speech thrive in society, because healthy private and public discourse is the means for people and society to reflect and move forward.

And that brings me to my main point today – after our robust debate today, we must do more to communicate to our people what constitutes responsible speech. A fair number of my residents have seen the various news articles, WhatsApp messages, and even Michelle Chong’s recent interview of Minister K Shanmugam.

But there is still a much-needed desire for clarity on what this entire framework of various laws means. For example, POFMA does not target opinion. It is clear from what the various Government officials and Ministers have said. But at the same time certain offensive and divisive speeches are restricted using different laws.

What people do not understand is that there are several laws, each targeting different kinds of harmful speech with remedies that vary in strength. These laws includes : (a) POFMA and POHA; (b) Penal Code: section 298 and 298A; (c) Sedition Act: section 3, 4; (d) Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act: section 8; and (e) Contempt of Court: sections on scandalising of courts, and sub judice contempt.

These laws are complex to understand by themselves, and it is even harder for most Singaporeans to understand how it works altogether. Therefore, it is very important that we unpack for our people, in simple terms, what constitutes responsible speech: (a) the various laws; (b) the principles behind these laws; (c) our unique circumstances and vulnerabilities; and (d) who are these laws meant for?

Now that there is considerable public attention on responsible speech, let us ride on this wave of interest, and share more on this topic. When people understand better how the different laws work, their powers and limitations, then they can see that Government does not have blanket power to take down whatever news they do not like. Only certain types of speech that are harmful to society can be dealt with according to the law.

A good place for this to start is our schools, especially at our tertiary institutions, where there has been much discussion about this law today. I have seen a deep conviction by MinLaw to create our overall framework for responsible speeches. I hope we can see a whole-of-Government effort, including MOE, to communicate that clearly to our people in a simplified manner.

Next, I would like MinLaw to clarify on one matter. Under the law, there is a defence of "reasonable excuse" for the internet intermediaries. Does this mean that an intermediary can choose not to comply and invoke the defence, if it hurts their profits to comply?

Lastly, I would like to end by suggesting that Singapore actively contribute to the global discourse on how we deal with deliberate online falsehoods. Indeed, there are many legislators all over the world watching our deliberations today. Deliberate online falsehood is something that affects all societies and does not automatically and neatly stop at any borders. In the long run, our best bet is to shape the larger environment in a positive way.

Let me conclude, in my speech on the motion on this matter last year, I quoted Washington Post's motto, "Democracy dies from Darkness". Democracy cannot survive and thrive without a public discourse informed by facts, truth and transparency. Because public discourse is the means for our society to reflect collectively. Therefore, I support the Bill. It strengthens our framework of responsible speech. It seeks to root out merchants of mistruths, or special interests and worse still, foreign influence that seeks to deliberately manipulate and destabilise our society through fake news.

But we must go beyond crafting this excellent legal framework. We must communicate clearly and simply to our people what responsible speech entails, factoring our unique circumstances as a small, multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-racial city-state. Because what matters is not just ensuring that fake news has no place in Singapore, but also to ensure that our laws do not unintentionally curtail healthy and necessary discourse or diminish the marketplace of ideas that healthy democracies, like Singapore, require. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill.

6.34 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir. I seek your approval to speak in Malay first, please.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat: (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Fake news has adverse consequences around the world. Often, it is an act of mischief that causes disruption, discord and panic. Sometimes it can generate serious consequences, such as interference in national elections in India and Thailand, and causing clashes between the people and the police as in Greece. In the UK, the fake news aims to make people question the safety of using vaccine to prevent diseases. And we in Singapore also have our fair share of people who spread fake news.

However, it is not surprising that there are those who are concerned about the Protection against Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill being tabled. Yesterday, Minister Shanmugam gave a detailed statement, and corrections or take-downs should only be made if it is a factual falsehood and undermines public interest. And the Minister's decision can be challenged in Court and changed. In addition, the appeal process is also made easy and affordable.

But having regulations in place is important to address falsehoods arising from cognitive biases. Such falsehoods, built up over time via a drip-feed effect, can become something that is hard to overcome. We have to nip the problem in the bud before it becomes a full-blown crisis. Falsehoods do not have to take the form of elaborate hoaxes that are detrimental to the public interest. In fact, elaborate hoaxes are more easily recognised and debunking it is not difficult, because it can be easily traced. On the other hand, drip-feed falsehoods are dangerous because they do not have an immediate effect and are harder to detect. If it is a constant drip-feed of falsehoods, it is, in fact, more damaging in the long run. It is like a whispering campaign to poison minds. The effect is comparable to the rain water dripping from a rooftop onto a walkway. Eventually the tiny droplets will create a cavity on the cement floor.

Social media giant Facebook recognises this problem and took steps to reduce the impact in the lead-up to the French election, for instance. They targeted fake accounts, worked with newsrooms to debunk false claims, and ran full-page ads in the French newspapers to guide readers on how to spot fake news. According to the head of research at First Draft News, a non-profit coalition working to address misinformation online, which Facebook is also a member of, there was plenty of material sowing seeds of confusion and distrust. These come in the form of manipulated videos, photos and other misleading content. It is more insidious compared to a major hoax. They are relentless in their attacks as they persisted in their line of thinking.

So, it is crucial to note the intentions behind the creation of such content. Not all exist with pure intentions of providing entertainment or an alternative voice. Often, content creators seek to increase traffic and readership on their platforms which translates to financial profits. They resort to sensationalising and manipulating news with intentions of generating so-called original content which they hope would go viral. These stories tend to spark strong emotional responses like anger.

A common misconception is that drip-feed falsehoods do not have immediate impact on national security and so should not be investigated under the Bill. But if left unaddressed and allowed to manifest into something more threatening, that can lead to severe consequences. Many violent conflicts around the world have occurred as a result of the spread of such drip-feed falsehoods, which feed on people's fears to instil mistrust and hate on a gradual but regular basis.

In 2018, a terrible lynching happened in Mexico because of some rumours of child abduction when, in fact, no children were kidnapped. The incident made waves globally and many major news outlets cited it in their commentaries about the dangers of fake news. Yet, in 2019, child abduction rumours are causing violent attacks on the Roma people in France.

In other countries, religious institutions are destroyed, innocent people injured, even killed in protests, while outcomes of political elections and major referendums are manipulated through falsehoods. These have far-reaching impacts on countries, as well as their citizens. We need effective tools to deal with drip-feed falsehoods and we need them right now. It will be too late if we wait until the harm reaches a severe level to take action.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my question then is how will the Minister for Home Affairs or Minister for Law react to seemingly inconsequential lies and misrepresentations, especially when the perpetrators use the drip technique to slowly feed poison into the minds of readers? For example, a personal account about how the Police has mishandled a case, which may or may not contain some personal bias, or a photo edited in a way that misrepresents local authority figures, or a post about an ethnic stereotype, perhaps made in jest. Ethnic memes are popular in the west, and I have no doubt that some Singaporeans use them in a tongue-and-cheek manner with no real intention of promoting hate. Yet if such content is made accessible on a regular basis, this potentially leads to a drip-feed of falsehoods and diminution of public confidence over time.

I am assured to know Minister Shanmugam had clarified that there would be a "clear oversight mechanism" in place to prevent possible abuse of power by the Singapore Government. I agree that swift action is necessary to prevent seeds of discord from growing into something more threatening. In doing so, reasons and evidence should also be released to the public upon issuance of the take-down or correction order. This would not only assure Singaporeans that the Government only targets false statements with evidence, but it will also give more strength to the correction. Corrections must be carefully crafted and they must be detailed, with the purpose of refuting each and every false claim. The Minister has said that this will be done, and it will be prescribed through law. I am glad that the Minister acknowledges the importance of transparency. However, the timeliness of publishing the correction is also important, and I urge the Minister to consider this factor as well; any possible, tighten the time needed.

This Bill should not be deemed as an end all be all to shut down fake news. Regular reviews should be done to assess what type of content is prone to being turned into fake news content, and what are the reasons, and what can we do about it.

I also note that some netizens have been comparing POFMA to the Anti-fake News Bill by our Malaysian counterparts. I am not legally trained but I tried to read the Bill to my understanding, the example illustrations of actions that would be prosecuted under the Anti-fake News Bill in Malaysia, are indicative of outright defamation, quite a different type of falsehood from what POFMA seeks to eradicate. Moreover, the punishments are harsh for perpetrators and abettors, involving astronomical fines and long jail terms.

In the case of POFMA, Directions are intended to remedy the impact of falsehoods and not those who deliberately create and spread falsehoods. For example, they may be issued to intermediaries, primarily. The Directions are not even focused on punishment but on remedying the impact and thus the correction is an important element. Both Bills, in Singapore and Malaysia, have different intents and it is unfair to compare them. The main levers in the POFMA Bill, are targeted at the intermediaries, through the various Directions that can be made. That is different from Malaysia's Anti-fake News Bill.

Education must continue to play an important role too, to impart critical thinking skills and help Singaporeans to discern whether something is a falsehood. There must be more trusted avenues for Singaporeans to do fact-checking. There are some international websites which do fact-checking and publish corrections of fake news. Unfortunately, there are also hoax websites that impersonate fact-checking websites! Can the Government share how the tools for dealing with online falsehoods today are inadequate? What other efforts are there to complement the legislation in countering online falsehoods?

In conclusion, a multi-pronged approach is required to curb and eventually eradicate fake news, especially those that are connected to deep-seated beliefs. In prosecuting perpetrators of fake news, we must maintain transparency of the process, allowing the public to understand why it is deemed a falsehood. We must reflect on why many people believed in a particular piece of fake news, and how we can get to the root of the problem. We must also persist to encourage Singaporeans to adopt the correct attitudes and values when gathering information on the internet. Sir, I support the Bill.

6.43 pm

Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, fake news is not new. Deliberate disinformation has been part of statecraft for centuries. Singapore has experienced our own tragic effect of disinformation in our early days.

And I will quote two examples. The first is the Communist threat. Early propagandists like Tan Malaka who hailed from Indonesia. He was an agent of the Comintern. Arriving into Malaya in the 1920s, he invited the Chinese Communist Party to send agents into Malaya in 1925. That marked the beginnings of the early stages of the Malayan Communist Party (CPM). The CPM grew by leaps and bounds during the Second World War. We launched the Communist struggle at the end of the Japanese Occupation, and thus began the Malayan Emergency.

Disinformation and propaganda of falsehoods supported by Communists in the region were widespread all the way until the 1980s. This entire experience of the Communist lead to over 13,000 deaths over 12 years, ending only in 1960. Subsequently, they went underground but continued to destabilise young nations of Malaya and Singapore.

In 1964, we had the race riots. It is a tragic yet pivotal moment in our history. One seared into our psyche. Yet though we call it a race riot, it was the weaponisation of political narrative that led to the unfortunate incidents.

Its background is not unknown to us. Many have studied it. Key of which was the political disagreements between the Alliance Federal government in Malaysia and the PAP Government in Singapore. UMNO at that time led the campaign through Utusan Melayu, which was a Jawi based newspaper. Disinformation articles in Jawi manipulating the words of Singapore leaders were widespread. An example of which, is this article from 17 July 1964. Very soon, the fall, the riots took placed. It established facts that were untrue about our Leaders, it spoke about Singapore Leadership intentions to oppress of Malay rights. Clarifications were made by Singapore Leaders but clarifications were not published by the paper.

There were further deliberate disinformation campaigns. A series of leaflets were issued calling for Chinese to be killed in Singapore. In one paragraph, it said, "We should wipe out all the Chinese from Singapore to prevent them from making fools of us." Materials like that inflamed tensions between communities. On top of that, you have further inflammatory speeches by people such as Secretary General of UMNO, Syed Jaafar Albar. One thing led to another and created a climate of fear and distrust. What would have been a small incident during the procession on Prophet Muhammed's birthday became that spark on the entire pile of tinder that exploded. Deaths, injuries, destruction. Not just of lives and infrastructure but society itself.

However, we survived it and we thrived. But will we be as lucky the next time? Today this Bill gives us the capability we lacked then. To put out clarifications, corrections fast, accurately and widely. We may speak philosophically about it. But when lives depend on accurate information that needs to be out there urgently, we will be, would not want to be philosophical about it.

Let us look at Ukraine today. It is subjected to a daily barrage of disinformation to destabilise the country, further divide the Russian-speaking population, the minorities there and the majority Ukrainians. As an example: a pro-Russian fake news site circulated an article that the press service of the Ministry of State of Security in the Donetsk People’s Republic reported that Ukrainian forces were preparing a provocation in Donbass. This was when an EU delegation was due to visit. The DPR Ministry claims to have uncovered Ukrainian forces’ plans to use a missile to shoot down the delegation’s helicopter and blame it on the DPR's rebels. This just one example of the daily barrage that they have to go through.

The Select Committee has reported on how falsehoods have been weaponised by some countries. Minister in his opening speech yesterday spoke yesterday about "non-kinetic warfare" to harm the sovereignty and social resilience of other nation states. Dr Shashi Jayakumar of the RSIS presented before the Select Committee and he shared on how disinformation operations involve and I quote: "spreading rumours to discredit politicians, and playing up themes like the negative portrayal of immigration policy have been aimed at undermining public trust towards democracy, and systematically influencing populations to become less trusting of mainstream, established news networks and more trusting of fringe news sources (backed by foreign powers) and conspiracy narratives."

We must realise that this is not a theoretical possibility. It is not one that is far removed from our shores. The Select Committee has received expert evidence of foreign state-linked disinformation already present in Singapore. This makes complete sense. We are a nation that is open and connected and diverse, and therefore, is the perfect target for disinformation operations as part of larger influence operations to wear down our people.

I return to my earlier starting point that disinformation is not new. Then what makes it so different now that we require new and robust laws?

Retired US Airforce Intelligence Colonel Jon Herrmann describes what is known as the V3S3 of "weaponised narratives": vector, vulnerability, and virulence; scope, speed, and synergy. Traditional vectors in traditional warfare are physical weapons but they have limitations of reach and cost. Falsehoods, however, as weaponised narratives and disinformation are unconstrained by physical bunkers of hiding spots. It has a global blast radius that self-propagates after launch. Vulnerability traditionally meant how much of a bombardment you can take before physical resistance succumbs. Today, it is easy to get past cognitive resistance. It exploits our weaknesses and our biases.

Virulence today should be no surprise as well because fake news and falsehoods spread faster and wider than any given chemical weapons. The scope and speed by which falsehoods spread when digital technology costs so much less than bullets. Ammunition that self-replicates through bots and online armies. What some refer to as a firehose of falsehood, the deluge that comes towards you. And of course synergy when disinformation builds up one on another, confusing first, confounding and then eventually convincing the population.

So, even traditional disinformation campaigns have evolved. I think we can all agree that against such state-sponsored disinformation campaigns needs speed, accuracy and clarity, wide distribution and inoculation to combat. And therefore, the Executive is best placed in this situation to make the call for national security.

There will be some who say, why not let us take a middle ground. While some falsehoods will require swift action, the same urgency should not extend to other kinds of falsehoods, for example, drip feed falsehoods. But against this backdrop, the assertion that some drip feed falsehoods should not require swift actions is misconceived. It is precisely drip feed falsehoods that are the weapon of choice of state-linked actors today. Gradual insidious effect can take root deep in the population’s psyche. Without a speedy reaction, it can be very difficult to remedy.

In this line, I wish to make a point on the final limb that is proposed in this legislation. Some have expressed concerns over this. That of undermining public confidence in the Government and other agencies and some say the definition of "public interest" is far too wide. However, given the expert evidence on disinformation operations, especially those that are already apparent in Singapore, it is clear why this ground is needed. It is important that the exercise of power remains subject to clear check and balance. I think we must accept that. But this Bill does provide for it and has been emphasised by the Minister and many others who have spoken about it.

Disinformation campaigns, weaponised narratives, all served as this new front and we must all be prepared. To better inform the public on why POFMA is of particular importance to combat such foreign campaigns, I ask that the Minister share more on how the Bill serves as a counter to state-linked campaigns run against us and to prepare and inoculate our people against such disinformation that seeks to divide our population.

Coming back to my example on the Communist threat in the early years, some younger residents that I spoke to recently asked what will be the status of academic research. For example, historians writing papers on research into Operation Coldstore. Research that asks if there was ever a Communist threat, if there were ever any Communists in Singapore at all. I think these are honest questions and I am thankful that Minister Ong, as Minister for Education, has spoken succinctly on this. What the Bill encompasses and what it does not, especially when it comes to academia.

Much has also been said about the directions by the Minister or Ministers. Whether to correct or to take down. Some say that the direction is like a beheading. It serves as a tool to permanently silence the discussion. This, I think, grossly misconstrues what the directions set out to do. Far from silencing discourse, I submit that it adds to it. In fact, as it stands, even after a correction, the original poster can still comment on it. So can journalists, so can academics, so can any man in the street.

When the Minister give a correction or take down directions, he is required to give reasons on why a statement of fact is false. So, far from reducing the discourse, it acts to it. More importantly, it certainly does not silence. In fact after a take-down, the person is free to continue posting on any other matter. To say that the directions will silence discourse, ignores that the discourse will now be more complete because it will have both view points. It is up to the public to decide, with the availability of both view points, what is right or what is wrong.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this is an important and much needed piece of legislation. We are under threat from outside actors and that is something that requires robust measures to safeguard Singapore and Singaporeans; and that is why I support this Bill.

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Png Eng Huat.

6.57 pm

Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Sir, if this Bill is drafted solely to target the perpetrators of hate, violence, intolerance and disdain towards another race or religion, by all means, let us do it. We should never allow such people to propagate their vile ideologies in any form or manner. This world has no place for sick people with no love and respect for life, happiness and basic human decency.

If this Bill is also to hold those big, powerful online businesses accountable and responsible to stop the spread of such vile messages, by all means, let us go after them too. These money‐minded companies cannot have the cake and eat it at the expense of our social order, racial and religious harmony.

And if this Bill is drafted solely to protect our way of life, our love and respect for one another, regardless of race, language or religion, I am all for it.

But this Bill is way more than that. This Bill will also give a “big brother” government considerable latitude to silence the voice of the common man in a community where he can be at ease to express his views, opinions, arts, music, political beliefs and more, without inhibition. This Bill will strike fear into the hearts of these Singaporeans who are vocal and passionate about the issues they care about most because they can be issued with a Part 3 Direction even if they do not know or have no reason to believe that the fact of what they have shared in their community could be wrong.

This Bill will arm the Minister with a nuclear option to act as judge and jury to obliterate critics and opponents of the Government in a flash. This Bill, if abused, will turn Singapore into a repressive state in no time.

Sir, I, too, subscribe to the belief that freedom of speech is never absolute. One cannot shout fire in a crowded place and cause panic and mayhem in the name of free speech. I also subscribe to the fact that we are living in a very different world now. We do need to protect the society at large from being torn apart by the rise of racial and religious tensions fanned by bigots, extremists and racists. So, this Bill should be scoped with the sole purpose to protect the society from harm espoused by people with vile intentions. It should be scoped to hold companies which allow hate ideologies and messages to propagate in their systems accountable. It should not be scoped with ambiguity to protect a “big brother” government from critics, political opponents, civil societies, NGOs and online communities, in the name of tackling online falsehood.

This Government has already amassed an arsenal of legislation to block or take down undesirable materials to protect the community at large. Does it really need a nuclear option to send a shiver down the spines of men in the street, uncles and aunties, academics, critics, and the society at large, in the name of protecting them from online falsehood and manipulation?

Sir, the ambiguity of this Bill is even more telling when it comes to the business of elections. The absolute power it bestows on a Minister to remove information that may influence the outcome of an election cannot be understated. This Bill basically allows an incumbent party, who is seeking re‐election, the sole power to remove any damaging statement made against the party and its leaders, in the name of public interest, so as to contain any political fallout.

The nuclear option, if abused, will actually allow the Minister to influence the outcome of an election, something which this Bill is designed to prevent in the first place. Who can vouch that an incumbent party, when faced with multiple battles on all fronts, will not resort to desperate measures to avoid losing power in a critical election? We are all against foreign intervention in our electoral process. The powers that be in this world may want to influence the outcome of elections for whatever reason and we should not allow them. But we are not alone and we should work with the social media giants to stop these foreign agents from trying to influence the outcome of our elections.

But the biggest fear of someone making a false statement of fact knowingly to influence the outcome of an election may not come from an individual or from an outside source, but from an incumbent party with ample resources to shape public opinion and perception at will. The biggest contributor of misleading propaganda may come from the incumbent Government itself. So, where is the protection against the incumbent from influencing the outcome of an election under this Bill?

Take, for example, at the last General Election. At the eleventh hour of the campaign, the PAP machinery sent a letter to the residents of Punggol East, stating that $22.5 million dollars belonging to the constituency and transferred to the accounts of the Workers' Party‐run Town Council in 2013 had become unaccounted for. The letter said it was an indisputable fact that the money had gone missing from our books, contrary to what was reported by our auditors every year.

Clearly, this false statement was made solely to influence the outcome of the 2015 elections. So, how would this proposed Bill, if it were to be in place, deal with this false statement of fact coming from the incumbent party at the very last minute, and regurgitated by the state media to reach a wider audience without any fact checking done?

Let me give another scenario. What if, during an election, some insiders were to publish serious personal allegations against the top leadership of the incumbent party, questioning their integrity and character to lead the country. Under this Bill, the Minister, Competent Authority or Alternate Authority, can easily order a take‐down of the allegations in the name of public interest, knowing very well that no one, apart from the Ministers, the affected Minister and insiders themselves would know who was telling the truth. So, would this Bill be used to silent such information which could be material to help voters decide who to support in an election?

Any statement made against an entity of the authority or its leadership, which may not be outright false but could be misconstrued in the context in which it appears, can be taken down in the name of public interest under this Bill solely at the discretion of any Minister, without having first to prove the alleged falsehood. The nuclear option would be able to silence anyone instantly at a critical time with no immediate recourse.

Sir, no matter how you dissect this proposed Bill, the arbiter of truth originates from the Government and its Ministers, and the Competent Authority that reports to them. The Minister for Law was reported to have said, and I quote, "The Courts decide ultimately what is true and what is false and they will be the final arbiters."

But under this proposed Bill, if a Minister opines that it is in the public interest to issue a Part 3 Direction on a statement made against the Prime Minister, for example, that opinion would be taken at face value as the gospel truth, and justice would have to be served immediately. How is that even right to begin with? How it is not wrong in any sense of the laws that one is judged and prosecuted for something that the Courts must decide ultimately if it was indeed false in the first place?

This Bill will assume the Government is always right all the time until the Courts say otherwise. As the Minister had cleverly put it, the Court is the final arbiter of truth, and the key word is "final" because, in reality, the original arbiter of truth had already spoken and issued the decree for punitive action to be taken immediately. It is easy for the Law Minister to say, and I quote, "These Ministers are elected officials, and the decisions they make could also be reflected by the people's votes during a General Election."

Sir, if an unscrupulous Minister were to abuse his power under this proposed Bill right before the hustings start, and win the election subsequently, what can the final arbiter of truth do? And, as the Minister had said yesterday, the fastest time the Courts can hear an appeal in this instance is nine days, excluding weekends and public holidays. There are only nine days of campaigning, including weekends and public holidays. Elections would be over by then.

And what if the alleged false statement of fact was not false after all and it could have influenced the outcome of the election? What would be the recourse? Under this Bill, the Courts may not even need to rule if the Minister were to subsequently agree with the aggrieved party, upon appeal, that the statement concerned was indeed not false. What if the Minister were to decide to cancel a Part 3 Direction on his own initiative, days after the elections are over? In both cases, no final arbiter of truth would be required. The undeserving candidate had won. Can the results of the general elections be declared void then?

Sir, the Law Minister had said in an interview that he cannot vouch for how a future government will act with this Bill. But if we knew that there is a nuclear option in the Bill, which could be abused in the future, why are we, as legislators, not doing anything about it now? Why would we want to leave a nuclear option for a future dictator to silence all dissenting voices with a snap of his fingers?

As stated at the beginning of my speech, I am all for the protection of our way of life, our racial and religious harmony. I am also all for making the online businesses accountable for the spread of ideologies that threatens the social fabric of our society. What I cannot support is for this Government to slip a nuclear option into this Bill to protect itself in the name of tackling online falsehood, especially in the context of conducting a fair election.

When we enact Bills that chip away our basic rights and freedoms, in name of protecting the society at large, we have to be wary about the added power we would be giving to the state in the process. That power, in the wrong hands, may kill the dreams, the imaginations, the laughter, and the creativity of the people. This Bill, in the hands of a despot, will kill democracy over time. The fact of the matter is: no one can vouch for how a future Government will act with this Bill, not just the Law Minister. I cannot, with a clear conscience, support this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Iswaran.

7.08 pm

The Minister for Communications and Information (Mr S Iswaran): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me start by saying I rise in support of the Bill standing in the name of the Minister for Law. My views are informed by my Ministry's and its agencies' experience in administering current content related legislation, in dealing with tech companies across a spectrum of issues, working with industries on the digitalisation of our economy and nurturing digital readiness in our society.

Sir, the digital information age has had a profound impact on our work, leisure and communication patterns. Let me illustrate.

A recent MCI study found that while broadcast and print media remain relevant, there has been a pronounced shift towards online news consumption. More than 96% of Singaporeans below the age of 50 regularly get their news from online sources. Similarly, and perhaps more starkly, 79% of Singaporeans in their 50s and 63% of those in their 60s, use online news sources, compared to 35% and 10% just five years ago.

Most consumers of online news typically access at least four or more digital sources. These sources are of varying reliability, ranging from the online version of mainstream media like CNA and The Straits Times, to international news media like CNN and BBC, and social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Closed messaging services like WhatsApp and WeChat have also become prevalent with more than 50% of Singapore residents using them to communicate and share information.

These trends will only gather pace and intensify, in tandem with the growing reach and accessibility of technology.

Singaporeans are avid users of technology. Our mobile population penetration rate, at about 150%, is among the highest in the world. As for Internet broadband, the wireless penetration rate for our population is over 200%. And the wired household penetration rate is 93.5%. IMDA reported that there has been a doubling of mobile data consumption in Singapore between 2016 and 2018. So, simply put, Singaporeans are highly connected and voracious consumers of data.

Connectivity and data are also essential to our digital economy. From 2012 to 2016, Singapore's cross-border data flows grew by 65% per annum to reach 24,000 gigabits per second, the highest per capita compared to other highly-digitalised economies. MTI's Economic Survey of Singapore in the third quarter of 2017 reported that, between 2005 and 2015, our share of global merchandise trade remained stable at about 2%, that is the trade in goods. But our share of the global trade in digitally-deliverable services nearly doubled from 3.5% to 6.5%.

The major global technology companies (FAANGs) have a significant presence in Singapore. We also have a vibrant news and media ecosystem – more than 60 media organisations are accredited in Singapore, and large media organisations, including BBC, Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters – have their regional offices in Singapore.

So, it is unambiguous and undeniable that the flow of data and information, like the flow of goods, services and capital, is vital to our economy and to our society. And that is why, any suggestion that this Bill is aimed at curtailing the online flow of information, or that it will be used by Ministers to make arbitrary decisions, is wholly unfounded and completely off the mark.

Any action to do so would be ill-advised and inimical to our interests. Why would any Minister want to put in jeopardy, jobs for Singaporeans and opportunities for our businesses? That just does not make good economics nor good politics.

Moreover, these kinds of decisions would also be subject to intense scrutiny and it will called out by a highly connected citizenry, as well as the tech and media organisations who have a substantial presence in Singapore. So, we have an eco-system that relies or derives great value from the flow of information and data. And that eco-system itself is going to be a natural check against any tendency to act or over-reach.

So, what then is our intent? As Minister Shanmugam has explained in detail and many Members of this House have agreed, this surge in the flow of information is a double-edged sword. It can be used to educate, to foster understanding and build trust but it can also be abused to spread falsehoods, sow discord and harm society. At the same time, technology companies' algorithms, policies, and design features have made it easier for echo chambers to be created and exploited

We face the most serious challenge in the digital realm because advances in technology have greatly increased the volume, reach and impact of online information flows. In the past decade alone, global cross-border data flows have risen 64 times. A further three-fold increase in Internet traffic is forecast from 2017 to 2022, and global mobile data traffic will increase seven-fold.

So, against this backdrop, we need new modes of engagement with the digital information landscape to ensure that our citizens are well-informed and equipped to navigate the vast and diverse online terrain, discern truth from falsehood and engage in meaningful discourse and make informed choices.

Some Members have asked how today's tools fall short. Our present laws, which were mainly conceived in the era of print and broadcast media, were not designed to address the issue of online falsehoods. For example, there are powers under the Broadcasting Act which regulates all broadcast content to issue take-down notices and block websites for public interest or security reasons.

However, in administering the Act, IMDA has found these to be blunt tools. It would mean blocking an entire online platform for a single falsehood, which Mr Low Thia Khiang may think it is all right. But it runs completely contrary to our desire for proportionality and calibrated regulatory interventions.

That is why this POFMA legislation is necessary. It is an essential and important addition to our regulatory architecture that introduces a calibrated set of measures to deal with the virulence and virality of online falsehoods.

The powers under the Bill range from Targeted Corrections, to General Corrections and, ultimately, Stop Communications or "take-down" Directions. These powers, as have been emphasised several times, can be exercised only if firstly, there is a false statement of fact and, secondly, it is in the public interest, as defined in the Bill, to act.

Within this spectrum of measures, our preference in the main is to issue correction directions. The merits of juxtaposing the facts with falsehoods should be self-evident. It will allow readers to make informed judgements, draw their own conclusions about the arguments that are being made and promote a more vigorous online discourse. As we have explained, the Disabling and Stop Communication Directions will only be used in extreme cases where there is a threat of serious harm.

Some have expressed concerns whether the powers under the proposed legislation will be used judiciously. I would cite for Members' reference our experience with the Broadcasting Act about which there were similar concerns. Since the inception of the class licence scheme under the Broadcasting Act in 1996, IMDA has issued only 39 take-down notices. You do the math, it is slightly more than one a year on average. I think that is certainly not over-reach.

There has been much debate over who should wield the powers under this Bill. Sir, there are three main considerations behind the proposal in this Bill.

First, as many have spoken, we need swift action against an online falsehoods given their virality and potential to cause harm.

Secondly, and I think this is crucial, consequently, we need deep domain knowledge to expeditiously assess whether there is an online falsehood and if it is in the public interest to act. This is important especially because online falsehoods can occur in domains as diverse as healthcare, finance or security. And if each of these case we expect one single authority to render a judgment in a timely manner and take expeditious action, I think that is a very tall order.

Finally, the third consideration is there must be accountability for the exercise of these powers.

I would argue that vesting the authority in Portfolio Ministers with the availability of judicial oversight, as proposed in the Bill, best meets all three considerations. The Minister, supported by his Ministry's officials and resources, would have the requisite domain expertise to make an assessment and act quickly to stem the potential harm arising from an online falsehood. Accountability is ensured as aggrieved parties can take action in Court against the Minister's decision. They are also answerable in Parliament. Therefore, in assigning the powers under the Bill to Portfolio Ministers, the Bill, I humbly submit, appropriately and correctly locates authority with accountability, supported by the requisite knowledge and expertise to make expeditious decisions, which is essential when you are dealing with the virality of online falsehoods.

I am, therefore, somewhat surprised by the allegations, bordering on the melodramatic, of some Workers' Party Members of Parliament who suggested that this Bill allows Ministers to arbitrarily decide what is true, to impose penalties on individuals, and to suppress any commentary.

This is completely not the case. Let me break it down for you.

First, the primary focus of this Bill is not individual per se; it is actually the larger tech platforms. Having said that, content often originates because of individual action, and therefore you cannot complete exempt it from the focus of this Bill.

So, assume someone puts up something online that is falsehood. The Minister – the Portfolio Minister – has to decide if it is false and is it in the public interest to act against it. If so, he has to then decide to issue a Direction, whether it is a correction or take-down, depending on what is the appropriate course of action.

The individual – since we decide to focus on individuals taking up the case made by Mr Low and other Members of the Workers' Party –then has a choice: you comply with the Direction, or you disagree and you appeal to the Minister; you apply to the Minister for either a cancellation or a variation. If the Minister decides a Direction is still valid, then the individual can still appeal to the High Court within the prescribed period.

Now, what then on the part of the Executive? If the individual does not comply with the Direction, the competent authority will commence investigations, or may commence investigations for non-compliance with direction under section 15 of this Act. Reasonable excuse is a defence to the criminal offence of not complying with the Direction. The outcome of the investigation will be presented to the Public Prosecutor in the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) for decision on prosecution. If the Public Prosecutor decides to proceed, the matter will be brought to the Courts, and the Court will then decide on guilt and penalties.

So, this process is one where there is very clear due process. I fail to see how one can jump to the conclusion that Ministers are judge and jury, or indeed exercise nuclear options. Also, the Courts decide on the penalties, not the Ministers. And, the right to comment, that is the right to free speech, continues in the course of this process until and unless it is sub judice. In other words, the individual can, and other interested parties can, put up online commentary to say that: I am the subject of POFMA action, or as Prof Lim Sun Sun put it, "I am being POFMAed", and you can take it up as a commentary and discussion.

I fail to understand how this encroaches on the rights of the individual, how it has this purported chilling effect that many Members of the Opposition claim. Certainly, given the safeguards and the due process that I have outlined, I do not see how this can be seen as Ministers having excessive powers.

Mr Png Eng Huat also talked about the Election period. I do not know whether he has read section 52 of the Act. That section provides clearly for Alternative Authorities during the Election period. So, your entire speech about conflicts of interest during the Election is addressed by that section because during the Election period, the Ministers from different Ministries will appoint their Permanent Secretaries or the equivalent senior officials to act and exercise the authorities under this Bill.

Sir, Prof Lim Sun Sun suggested that Ministers should nonetheless also be guided by independent advisory panels. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents Ministers from consulting and seeking views from experts outside of their Ministries, where necessary and the circumstances permit.

In addition, certain broader powers such as those to block funding and access to online locations under part 5 of the Bill are given only to the Minister for Communications and Information as these decisions have broader implications, beyond individual Ministries, for Internet users, the industry and the digital infrastructure.

Let me now turn to the Competent Authority. Under section 6(1), the Minister may appoint a Statutory Board or senior official as the Competent Authority. Hence, to administer the Bill, we intend to establish a new POFMA Office – it may not be the most literary elegance – but it is calling a spade a spade. So, we will establish a new POFMA office within IMDA which will be the Competent Authority.

As enumerated in section 6(2), a key function of the Competent Authority is to give effect to the instructions of the Ministers. IMDA's experience in administering the Broadcasting Act and other content regulation policies, and its regular interaction with the media and technology companies will be relevant to the administration of this Bill.

This POFMA Office will support the Portfolio Ministers with technical advice on the precedents, the types of levers available, the feasibility, and the effectiveness. The Competent Authority will thus help provide consistency across the Government in the implementation of the Bill.

This office will also work with technology companies on the Codes of Practice and monitor compliance with the directions and Codes.

Apart from the measures proposed in the legislation, there is also a need to address issues upstream. Upstream safeguards like authenticity of users and transparency of advertising are issues that technology companies are also trying to address in different ways. The more we can work with tech companies on such upstream systems and processes, the less we will need to take action downstream.

To that end, clause 48 of the Bill empowers the Competent Authority to issue one or more Codes of Practice. These Codes will apply only to prescribe digital advertising and Internet intermediaries, and we are now developing them in consultation with these intermediaries. The Codes aim to first prevent and counter the misuse of online accounts where malicious actors act behind online anonymity. Among other things this would require intermediaries to use reasonable verification measures to prevent inauthentic accounts or bots from being created or used for malicious activities.

Second, these Codes will enhance the transparency of political advertising. Intermediaries will have to ensure that political advertisements disclose who the source is. This encompasses Elections advertising and advertisements on issues of public interest or controversy in the Singapore context, including those pertaining to race or religion.

Third, the practice will also require de-prioritising online falsehoods. This will ensure that credible content is given prominence and/or falsehoods are prevented from gaining prominence.

Ms Joan Pereira has asked about the Codes and how they were being developed. The scope of these Codes of Practice takes reference from international norms including the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation, as well as, we have been having consultations with companies and international experts. All of these will inform the final formulation of the Codes of Practice.

The implementation of the Codes will be targeted and graduated, and the focus will be on ensuring that intermediaries have adequate systems and processes in place. When breaches occur, the Competent Authority will consider factors such as the seriousness of the breach, whether there has been a pattern of similar breaches, and whether it reflects systemic deficiency in processes, and whether intermediaries' efforts to remedy the breaches are adequate.

There has been a question, and some Members have articulated this: how or whether this Bill will affect Singapore's attractiveness as a technology hub and our relationship with the tech companies.

The tech companies are an important part of Singapore's business ecosystem, especially our digital economy. Our value proposition to tech companies is anchored on several factors and that includes our political stability, our rule of law, conducive business environment, international connectivity and our skilled workforce. This is why the major tech companies have continued to expand their operations in Singapore in the past years. We continue to have regular engagements with the technology companies on a broad range of issues pertaining to investments, research and development, talent development and other collaborations of mutual interest.

With respect to this Bill, our officials have been working with the tech companies that are most affected to incorporate their comments and feedback and where possible, work together on solutions. We have sought to incorporate their feedback into the main body of this Bill. We are working with the tech companies in developing the Codes of Practice and the Competent Authority will also work with the intermediaries to develop company-specific Annexes to the Codes.

And this is important. Why? Because these Annexes will clarify how each intermediary will operationalise the broad outcomes, principles and objectives of the Codes, taking into account the unique characteristics of each intermediary’s platform, its existing systems and measures to combat disinformation, technical capabilities, as well as effectiveness. In other words, some of these will have to be customised because of the nature of the different intermediaries and those will be captured in the Annexes to these Codes of Practice.

The Competent Authority will regularly review these Codes of Practice and Annexes to ensure that they keep pace with developments in technology, in market environment and user behaviour and preferences.

Prof Lim Sun Sun said that we should approach these tech companies under a "collaborate framework". Where there are falsehoods that affect the public interest, defensive action should and must be taken and we need to have regulatory tools to deal with the problem. However, there is also scope for collaboration. And that is why we have sought to deeply engage the tech companies throughout this process. Ms Irene Quay asked if we could consider legislative routes taken by other countries, where companies are tasked to proactively monitor and filter content.

I would say in response that this is neither necessary nor desirable. We do not want to outsource the responsibility for our national and public interest to private companies. Neither is it necessarily even in the interest of the tech companies.

Faced with broad demands and heavy penalties, companies would be compelled to be excessively cautious. It also increases compliance costs. For example, it has been reported that following the passing of the German law, one in six of Facebook moderators is now based in Germany.

Left to independently interpret Government objectives, companies would be accused of being politicised and biased by their users. Since 2018, Twitter and Facebook have been dogged by accusations of "shadow-banning" conservative opinions.

In contrast, our approach is for the ministers to assume the responsibility. They will issue unambiguous and detailed directions for the companies then to carry out.

I want to turn to non-legislative measures. Mr Seah Kian Peng asked quite eloquently yesterday whether we are asking too much of the proposed legislation and too little of ourselves. He raises a very important point. Amid the heat and dust generated by this vigorous debate on this Bill, we must not lose sight of the larger point – and that is, legislation is necessary but it is by no means sufficient in the fight against online falsehoods. Ultimately, our first and most important line of defence against online falsehoods is a well-informed and discerning citizenry, equipped with tools to combat online falsehoods.

The Select Committee highlighted the role of trusted fact-checking initiatives in combatting deliberate online falsehoods, and recommended that different media organisations, and partners from other industries, consider establishing a coalition in Singapore to debunk falsehoods swiftly and credibly, as well as to provide support to such fact-checking initiatives.

The Government agrees that it is important to have such fact-checking initiatives in society. However, such initiatives should go beyond fact-checking to ensure that the discourse is authentic and responsible, and citizens are well-informed of the principles of engagement.

Over time, through the collaborative efforts of different parties and agencies, we envisage a tighter nexus between the different entities, including academia and journalists in Singapore so that high-quality information can reach the general public, to engender greater understanding of current affairs and complex issues.

These efforts will also be aligned with the Government’s commitment to support the growth of a robust and vibrant information eco-system, with a variety of entities contributing to the overall effort.

To do so, we will continue support ground-up efforts by interested members of the community and student groups and invest in resources and efforts to build up digital literacy. There have been many community efforts already in this regard.

Ms Joan Pereira and Dr Intan Mokhtar spoke about the need for media literacy for the young, and digital literacy for the elderly. Various Government agencies, such as the National Library Board, MOE and MINDEF, provide information literacy resources to students, adults and seniors. The Government also launched Digital Defence as the sixth pillar of Total Defence this year, with the call to be secure, alert and responsible online. The Media Literacy Council runs the Better Internet Campaign and provides seed funding for youth-led initiatives to address digital literacy and cyber safety and security.

There are also collaborations among our local Universities, tech companies and media companies to enhance media and information literacy, such as the hackathon called, quite dramatically, “Fake News Must Die” and it was held in late 2017 supported by Google, our Institutions of Higher Learning (IHLs) and mainstream media.

Over time and taken together, these measures will empower citizens to make informed decisions on their consumption of information and to be more discerning on multifaceted issues, thereby helping to grow an informed citizenry.

Sir, let me conclude by emphasising a few key points.

First, it is abundantly clear that we need a new and fit-for-purpose set of regulatory tools to deal with the challenge of online falsehoods in the digital age. This legislation is a pragmatic response to that challenge, providing for a set of calibrated measures.

By vesting in Portfolio Ministers the authority to issue directives and providing for judicial oversight, the Bill strikes the best possible balance between the needs for swift action, accountability for decisions and the requisite domain expertise to make quick assessments.

In drafting this legislation, we have engaged the tech companies and other stakeholders and sought to incorporate their concerns where possible. We also continue to have constructive discussions with the tech industry on a broader range of issues of mutual interest.

Ultimately, the scourge of online falsehoods is an ever present and evolving threat. That is why legislation is not enough. We need a concerted whole-of-nation effort, from citizens, industry, stakeholders and Government and, in particular, a well-informed and discerning citizenry is the first and most important line of defence against online falsehoods.

And I hope that all Singaporeans will join us in this important effort, give their full support to the intent of this legislation and the impact it seeks to have in raising the quality and integrity of discourse in the digital realm and help to raise the digital readiness and strengthen the Digital Defence capabilities of our society. [Applause]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Chia Shi-Lu.

7.39 pm

Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill, which I believe to be necessary for the welfare of all Singaporeans.

I would like to speak on the importance of this new Act, from the perspective of healthcare, and specifically from the viewpoint of the pernicious and harmful effects of deliberate online falsehoods and malicious misrepresentations in regard to medical and health information. And I hope that this also illustrates why I feel that the approach this Bill takes is indeed the right approach to protect us all from online falsehoods.

It was not too long ago that healthcare professionals and ordinary citizens alike hailed the Internet as the great equaliser by helping to reduce information asymmetry between healthcare providers and their patients. While many doctors were initially apprehensive when their patients became so much better informed due to the amount of medical information available online, healthcare professionals gradually learnt to welcome this and appreciate how this made the doctor-patient relationship more equal and more participative.

But it soon became apparent that the Internet, like any powerful tool, can be a double-edged sword. Medical misinformation and outright falsehoods began gaining a larger and larger footprint in the data-sphere, and it was exasperating to many healthcare providers that such falsehoods online were significantly impacting the health-seeking behaviour and ultimately the health of their patients, so much so that life and limb were at risk.

In an op ed piece earlier this year by Dr Haider Warraich, with the byline “Fake news threatens our democracy. But fake medical news threatens our lives”, he notes that and, I quote, “While misinformation has been the object of great attention in politics, medical misinformation might have an even greater body count. As is true with fake news in general, medical lies tend to spread further than truths on the Internet – and they have very real repercussions”. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I am sure that Members of this House are aware of the many examples of fake health news online that have led to very real harm. False information about statins, which are cholesterol-lowering medicines, has led to many people choosing not to go on these medicines and so significantly raising their risk of heart attacks; fake claims about cancer treatments have led many to forego lifesaving treatment for curable tumours, in favour of treatments that have no known efficacy and which can even be dangerous. There is also a lot of false information online about the dangers of various types of vaccines.

In recent months, some residents have approached me with their concerns about the safety of vaccination programmes that we have been advocating for public health reasons. Some expressed their belief that vaccination could lead to serious mental or neurological damage, others were convinced that many vaccines contain poisons. When asked about the source of this information, they all indicated articles they had read on the Internet, or information circulated via WhatsApp or SMS. This is unsurprising, because such untruths cannot be circulated in print or other physical media as there are regulations against the promulgation of such false information.

(In English): The consequences of fake medical news are clear to see: it is startling that we are now seeing measles epidemics around the world, with very real loss of life, that could have been entirely preventable through vaccination, vaccination that increasing numbers are choosing to refuse partly due to untrue information available online.

Closer to home, the timely decision by MOH to introduce anti-HPV vaccination for female schoolchildren, which will save the lives of many of our future wives and mothers, has been greeted with the rise of online falsehoods regarding the vaccine, which seek to derail this very important and life-preserving programme. Online falsehoods have very real consequences. Misleading information spread by the anti-vaccine movement using social media can cause parents to reconsider vaccinating their children, exposing them to significant health risks.

Prof Heidi Larson, who is a public health expert at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, wrote in the journal Nature that: "The next major outbreak of a fatal strain of influenza or something else will not be due to a lack of preventive technologies. Instead, emotional contagion, digitally enabled, could erode trust in vaccines so much as to render them moot. This deluge of conflicting and manipulated information on social media should be recognised as a global public health threat."

Like other Members before me, I do not think that this Act will be an impediment to free speech, nor should it have any chilling effect on public discourse or creativity. I believe it will actually accomplish the opposite.

The problem we have now is that in the online arena, those that shout the loudest, trumpet that which is sensationalist, novel or frightening regardless of its veracity, will garner the most attention and drown out other voices, leading to an imbalance which actually prevents equitable and meaningful discussion.

A lie is a lie, no matter how much you may wish it to be true, and no matter how you paint it, and the distinction between truth and falsehood is simple where it counts, in matters of life and death, and of sickness and health. Particularly in issues of healthcare, there is really no need for committee after committee, council after council, or for the Courts to decide what is true and what is not. This yardstick does not apply to truth in advertising or standards in claims about medical treatments offline, so why should offline or online untruths be spared? Therefore, I feel that the same should apply to online information and also misinformation about healthcare.

Make no mistake about it, much of this information online are deliberate and carefully crafted and cultivated. This new disease on online space, as hon Member Ms Sun Xueling has so eloquently put in her speech yesterday, needs a targeted yet calibrated response with legislation such as the one we are debating today, or these bad actors of the social media space will gain the upper hand to the detriment of us all.

It is, of course, important that we continue to invest in public education, but the general public cannot be always relied on to tell what is fake news and what is not. In fact, in a recent study by MIT, it showed that people are 70% more likely to share online falsehoods rather than facts. Laws still need to be in place to safeguard the public interest and for public safety.

Hence, I agree that domain Ministers are best placed to decide if the falsehood concerning their area impacts public interest, as the correction of online medical falsehoods, for example, constitutes a public health urgency, and demands to be expedited, and speed here is indeed necessary.

If there is a physical threat to public security or public health, an Executive decision needs to be made as to how to counter this threat, and certainly decision by committee or by prior application to the Courts certainly would not work. Imminent or existing threats, either physical or in the online space, must be dealt with expediently, though I do agree that for the falsehoods, there should still be an appeals process, and the Courts should have the final say on what is false.

Here I do seek a clarification from the Minister as the process through which an online falsehood will be dealt with in terms of the action or the corrective action taken: how will it be decided if a simple corrective rebuttal is all that would be required, or if a take-down is needed?

This is because like most situations in healthcare, prevention is always better than cure. Once a medical lie has entered the public domain, it takes root very quickly and becomes very hard to eradicate, if not impossible. Posting the real facts alongside the falsehood will probably be of little use. It is so much more powerful and engaging to read a snippet of alarmist fake medical news, and believe it to be true due to the strong human element, than to believe the reams of boring but rigorous scientific and medical evidence that can be posted alongside it. For example, there is news circulating online about how a promising young person was reduced to a cripple some weeks after receiving a vaccine, and how the vaccine was responsible for her horrific condition. Imagine if we were just to post alongside this untrue article the links to the many scientific papers showing it to be untrue, I wonder how many would think otherwise or have their opinions changed as a result of this corrective posting?

Way back during the SARS epidemic, for instance, what if there was fake news online that going to a quarantined area or to a hospital would lead to loss of life, or maybe things like eating white salt would be able to cure you of SARS, if this was allowed to spread unchecked on the internet, how many lives would have been lost?

I am going to end by just making a little bit of a small comment. I actually have a contrarian view that perhaps this law may in fact be a little bit too narrow. In fact, it is very far from the nuclear option that hon Member Mr Png just spoke about. From the perspective of an academic, which I think in some areas of my job roles I do consider myself as an academic, it has always been the case that when we do research or publish papers about various aspects of science or research, these are already subject to many rules and regulations. And the veracity of such publications, if they are erroneous conclusions or problems with the data, this is subject to very real scrutiny and there is already a due process for corrections or even retractions.

However, such avenues do not exist if such papers are published online, which is one of the criticisms for the emerging breadth of so-called research articles that are sprouting online. For example, if I were to take some data that had been rejected by all of the highly regarded and respected medical journals, and decided to take it in my own hands and publish it online, and many people could read it. There is actually very little recourse for the scientific community or for various agencies to be able to correct such falsehood.

Sir, in closing, I would like to end by expressing my thanks to the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods for their work and for their contributions towards the formulation of this Act, and I support the Bill.

7.51 pm

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, over the past two days, we have heard from more than 30 speakers. We have had hours of debates. We have had some rather bizarre images ranging from decapitations to usage of phrases like "nuclear", "chilling", "afraid", "fear" – makes you wonder sometimes whether we are watching a very disturbing B-grade, post apocalyptic movie. We have also heard some very compelling, logical and rational arguments as well.

One thing, despite the sheer diversity of views, is clear. And that is that all of us in this House agree that we need to assiduously tackle deliberate online falsehoods that have the potential to cause social and economic damage, by putting in place a response framework to prevent such hoaxes, misinformation and falsehoods from negatively impacting our society. Of course, where we differ is the form and manner of that framework.

I rise in support of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) as a mechanism that will curtail the potential dangers of falsehood and misinformation but I do have some points of clarification I would like to raise in my speech.

A key tenet of the POFMA is that deliberate online falsehood and misinformation campaigns will undermine social trust among communities, lead to the diminution of confidence in our public institutions and inflict harm on public interest.

Indeed, clause 4 of the Act clearly spells out instances where public interest will be compromised and that the Act can be invoked when such instances occur. While clause 4 spells out these instances, it also provides the Government some discretion to act under POFMA. As such, I would imagine that while falsehoods that deliberately promote ill-will among different communities would warrant the Government to invoke POFMA to "prevent feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different groups of persons", other forms of falsehoods and manipulations might be less clear cut. For example, it is stated in point (f) in clause 4 that POFMA could be exercised "to prevent diminution of public confidence in the performance of any duty or function of, or in the exercise of any power by the government”.

Could the Government please provide some clarity or examples of incidences on what it could consider as a diminution of public confidence in our public institutions or bearers of public office that would result in the Government exercising their powers under POFMA?

Another point I would like to raise pertains to the appeal mechanism that goes via the Courts. The present Act provides an eventual avenue for appeals against the Government’s decision to be made to the Courts, after an appeal to the Minister. There has been some criticism that this might result in an appeals process that is too overwhelming and even financially prohibitive.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I had initially considered the possibility of having the appeals process heard by a tribunal, rather than through the Courts. However, I realised that this would then raise the issue of who would appoint the members of this tribunal, as if the tribunal was appointed and approved by the Executive branch of the Government, then it would ultimately be handling an appeal on a decision made by that same Executive branch.

So, I do see the merits of the appeals being handled by the Judiciary, which is set apart from the Executive Branch. However, Sir, the reality is that for most people, the prospect of "going to Court" is an intimidating one and could actually be onerous and demanding, especially for individuals or organisations of modest means, who might not be financially equipped for such a legal appeals process, or who might find just find the whole process of legal appeal via the Courts too overbearing and intimidating.

Nevertheless, I do appreciate the fact that the Minister for Law has stated that the appeals process via the Courts will be kept as affordable and simple as possible, and I trust that the Government will do periodic reviews of this process to ensure that it always remains so.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, falsehoods that get repeated often enough and shared widely enough will be perceived to be true. We need to be cognisant about the slow drip effect of deliberate online falsehood on our social fabric and how it could erode trust between communities. As such, I believe that the Government has the responsibility to nip deliberate attempts to undermine social cohesion before these attempts can take root. However, I also feel that we need to get the balance right between making the right decision when it comes to curtailing deliberate online falsehoods, and being judicious in how those decisions are made.

Notwithstanding my concerns, I ultimately believe that the potential benefit of this Act far outweighs the potential pitfalls, and I thus conclude my speech in support of the Bill.

7.56 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, online falsehoods are a global problem. From developing to developed countries, they have seeded distrust, sparked violence and shaped elections. Singapore is right to take a proactive stance against the spread of online falsehoods. As we do so, I hope we can take a measured approach that balances the urgency of combating falsehoods with the costs to society.

I would like to thank the Minister for addressing the concerns about how long a Minister will take to consider an appeal and also the speed and cost of subsequent appeals to the High Court. I thank the Minister for providing assurances.

As the Minister has already addressed many of my concerns I was going to raise, and as many Members have raised many of the points I was going to raise – that is the luxury of being the last speaker – I just have three quick points for further clarifications.

First, in addition to the process of an appeal to the High Court, can the Minister also provide details of how long it would take and how much it might cost when cases go on further appeal to the Court of Appeal?

Would we also direct that the appeal be heard within a certain time-frame? I understand that it might be difficult to provide an estimate but would be grateful for a rough estimate of cost and timeline.

Second, the Ministry has said that the Bill does not cover satire or comedy. However, this exclusion is nowhere to be found in the Bill. It is not uncommon for satire or comedy to exaggerate or invent facts by intention. At the same time, online falsehoods have sometimes been perpetuated, for instance, by state actors in the guise of comedy. Can the Minister elaborate on how satire and comedy will be excluded from the law?

Lastly, Sir, the fight against the spread of falsehood must also be the fight for the spread of truth. The battle against falsehoods demands not only the stick but also the carrot. Having the tools to react promptly to falsehood is important. However, the Government cannot constantly be on the back foot playing whack-a-mole whenever another falsehood pops up.

If we want people to present the truth, we must demonstrate readiness to give the truth and then the data they need. Instead of being reactive, we can be proactive in spreading the truth by helping people, who would like to report on the truth, to obtain government data needed to verify their facts.

This is not a new proposal. The Select Committee itself proposed that public institutions should "pre-empt vulnerabilities and put out information in advance, where possible, to inoculate the public."

The Government should channel more resources and take greater efforts to engage Singaporeans. It can do so by sharing data and information more frequently and in greater detail. Other countries have done so through the freedom of information laws. More than 80 countries have some form of freedom of information laws. These include those closest to us such as China, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand. While Hong Kong has not legislated on the freedom of information, it has a Code of Access to Information. This is the formal framework for access to information held by government departments. The Code requires civil servants routinely or on request, to provide information unless there are specific reasons for not doing so. Further, there are procedures for review of complaint if the provisions of the Code have not been properly applied.

Our concern may be that excessive openers may compromise national security. However, there are common exceptions in freedom of information laws around the world, including national security, public safety, prevention of criminal activities and personal privacy. The freedom of information laws has been implemented to varying degrees of successes and effectiveness in these countries. With more than 80 case studies available, there are ample lessons that we can learn from both the successes and the failures.

The Select Committee has suggested that the Government should study the experiences of countries with freedom of information legislation and ombudsmen. Can the Minister share whether the Government is looking into this and provide an update. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister K Shanmugam.

8.01 pm

The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Thank you, Sir. I thank the Members for speaking. Some of the points raised by Members have also been addressed by Minister Ong Ye Kung and Minister Iswaran. Let me try and deal with the questions that have been raised.

Mr Vikram Nair and Mr Henry Kwek asked some questions relating to other parts of the Bill that were not covered in the opening speech, either by myself or Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong.

These provisions are fairly self-explanatory. But let me take Members briefly through these other provisions.

Part 6 of the Bill empowers the Government to direct an intermediary to prevent an inauthentic account from communicating content within Singapore, and interacting with users in Singapore, when the stipulated conditions are satisfied.

Part 5 of the Bill contains the levers relating to websites that put out falsehoods repeatedly. Such a website can be "declared" by the Minister. A number of consequences will then follow. The website will be de-monetised. The owner or operator of the website will be required to put up a notice warning users that the website has been declared and the website cannot then be promoted using digital ad tools.

Mr Henry Kwek asked about the defence of "reasonable excuse" and how it would work in practice. The Directions deal with the impact of falsehoods; they are not punishments. Non-compliance with the Direction, without reasonable excuse, is however an offence.

Clause 27, in particular, sets out factors that the Court must consider when deciding if the defence is available to an intermediary. These are the state of the art at that point in time, the cost of complying with the Direction relative to the means available to the Internet intermediary, and any other relevant factor. These are really all common sense factors. The bigger an intermediary is, the more it can be expected to invest in keeping its systems safe for those who use it. This also ensures that regulation does not become a barrier to entry for new entrants, thereby further cementing the dominance of the large incumbents.

But it should not be seen as licence for non-compliance. An intermediary that does not currently have the technical features to comply with the Direction, does not automatically have reasonable excuse. If that were so, an intermediary can just deliberately refrain from adopting product features that are needed, so that it does not have to comply with the Directions. And that would subvert the intent of the defence. That is why the Bill spells out these relevant factors. But the Court will look at all the circumstances and decide what would be reasonable.

Mr Vikram Nair asked if this Act will cover past statements. The Bill will come into force hereafter, with relevant subsidiary legislation, on a date to be specified, as is usual. Any statement after the Act, assuming it is passed, comes into force, will be covered. It could also cover future statements that may be made by reference to something said in the past, or statements which repeat past statements.

Ms Irene Quay asked about the relationship of this Bill with the Defamation Act and the Internal Security Act.

The Defamation Act deals in the private law sphere, with damage to reputation. For example, if someone says you are corrupt, then if it is not true, you can sue to clear your name. And many people will want to.

The Internal Security Act (ISA) deals with threats to national security. This Bill deals with falsehoods, to mitigate the impact and deter those who deliberately peddle in falsehoods, with the specific framework that is different from ISA.

Prof Lim Sun Sun agrees with the need for legislation, but refers to a "collaborative framework" within the Bill. There will be Codes of Practice for upstream regulation of tech companies. I think I can refer Prof Lim to the Select Committee's findings on the question of regulating tech companies and it was quite unequivocal. I can give you the paragraph references – paragraphs 406, 436, 476, 536. So, the Select Committee looked at the evidence that was presented and it was quite clear that regulation was necessary.

International sentiment. If we look at what the UK Digital Secretary Jeremy Wright said, and I quote, "The era of self-regulation for online companies is over. Voluntary actions from industry to tackle online harms have not been applied consistently or gone far enough." And, of course, Mr Zuckerberg himself, one day before this Bill was tabled said, and I quote, "I believe we need a more serious active role for governments and regulators ... I believe we need new regulation in four areas: harmful content, election integrity, privacy and data portability."

Assoc Prof Theseira articulated what the three Nominated Members of Parliament accept – the definitions of falsehood and of public interest in the Bill. They accept that the Executive must have the power to act. And they accept that trying to introduce judicial or independent oversight first, risks harm in the event of an imminent threat.

And I think Ms Ong said that the Independent Council proposed by the Nominated Members of Parliament was not meant to intervene with the decision-making process set out in the Bill.

As for the actual points in the Notice of Amendments, I do not think you want me to repeat the points I made yesterday. So, I will skip that.

Then, a number of comments were made on the definition of falsehoods. I think Mr Singh asked, fact and comment divisions not so clear; false or misleading in whole or in part is very wide. Mr Ng talked about satire and comedy. I think Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked about efforts to educate Singaporeans.

Mr Dennis Tan talked about misleading according to whose standards. If I say something according to my own views, but what if the Minister or Court interprets your meaning differently? Why should I be subject to corrections or take-downs? That I find a little surprising.

Let us say, Mr Tan, you put out a statement that three Chinese Police officers raped a Malay girl and the Police are covering it up. And then, you refuse to put a correction on the basis that it is not misleading according to your standards. There have got to be objective standards in these things. And I think, as a lawyer, you will understand that quite easily. Or for that matter, an actual case, Mr Nicholas Lim, that he was not charged because his parents were influential. I think you know who his parents are. And if you continue to insist your statement that his parents were influential and that is why the Police did not take action — I think there must be some objective standards. The law deals with objectivity in all these areas. So, I find this statement particularly troubling.

Ms Ong gave an illustration about an NGO that has evidence from a sexual assault victim, was unwilling to disclose the same details to the authorities. And Mr Chen made a similar point as well.

I think the definition of what constitutes a "statement of fact", I have gone through in some detail and so have others. It has been laid down by the Courts.

Some, including Mr Faisal and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, have asked why do we use the word "misleading". This reflects existing jurisprudence that statements can also be false by reason of having misled through omission. It reflects existing jurisprudence. At the end of the day, whether by omission or by express statement, the Bill deals with material that is false.

And I will quote the the Court of Appeal which has said the test for distinguishing between "comment" and "statement of fact" is an objective one. And I quote here, "whether an ordinary, reasonable reader on reading the whole article would understand the words as comment[s] or [as] statements of fact". The Courts are equipped to apply the legal test and have regularly done so.

The Nominated Members of Parliament, for example in their Explanatory Note, have said they do not propose amendments to the definition of a "statement of fact". The Bill relies on existing case law. And before the Select Committee, law academics gave evidence about the law, including professors from NUS and the Dean of the SMU Law School.

Ms Rahayu's question about education, about what is covered and not covered. Yes, of course, that will continue to be done.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]

And Mr Louis Ng's question on satire and comedy. By definition, once it talks about fact, then it excludes satire and comedy. That is how the law operates. Say this is fact and falsehoods, the Act applies to falsehoods, then satire and parody is excluded. I gave some examples yesterday about how parody can be converted and put out as fact. That is a separate scenario. I do not think the Member is talking about that.

Mr Dennis Tan also asked about falsehood in general. He said "diminution of public confidence" is not found elsewhere in the world and will prevent bona fide criticism. I would put this point in the same league as the earlier point and would ask what he means by bona fide criticism when falsehoods are generated and pushed out by bots, trolls, fake accounts and all the other mechanisms that I spoke about yesterday. What is meant by bona fide criticism? As a lawyer, Mr Tan will understand what is bona fide criticism. Certainly, this will not be considered by any Court, by anyone reasonable, as bona fide criticism. So, this debate, this Bill, I hope it is clear that we are not dealing with bona fide criticisms; we are dealing with falsehoods.

Mr Singh has some points about clause 4(f) on public confidence and cited as an example the recent discussion involving permits that Nas Daily obtained to hold a fan meet in Botanic Gardens. I think because his speech came immediately after Mr Tong's speech; he may not have had the time to look at the illustrations. And I specifically referred to it in my speech as well yesterday, precisely about this incident and I gave various illustrations. So, I will just refer Mr Singh to that.

But I will also caution generally against taking statements issued before this Bill comes into force and trying to compare and take them as if they come within the rubric of this Bill. Those statements were issued without reference to the terms of this Bill for several years. I think you should not take those statements and say, "Ah! Therefore, this comes within this Bill." They are different.

Mr Singh also takes issue with clause 4 being non-exhaustive. I had set out the existing legal position in considerable detail in my opening speech. And there are many statutory provisions, including the Broadcasting Act. You have seen the definitions of "public interest". This Bill actually articulates the grounds of public interest with greater specificity and clarity than in earlier laws.

And there are very practical reasons for keeping the list non-exhaustive. The Select Committee report states that as falsehoods appear in a broad spectrum of circumstances, if you look at paragraph 538. If we provide a closed list, then people will know precisely what the parameters are, and can work around them. And we talked about foreign actors, other bad people, and the point really is, public interest is a second limb. You have got to prove the falsehoods in the first place. So, there are two gates.

And I think once you say it is false, there is really not much argument if it impacts on public interest. And you have got to prove public interest in some way. And the Courts will have the final say on the matter, if challenged.

Mr Darryl David has asked for clarity of what would be considered a diminution of public confidence in our institutions. Let me give you three real life examples.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]

Yesterday, I referred to the Yellow Vest movement, trying to erode trust in the police. That would be one example. Secondly, there was a case of a forged letter from Sweden to Ukraine, asking Sweden to ensure the dismissal of a court case in the Swedish courts concerning Ukrainian war crimes. The letter suggested that Sweden was prepared to do so, to make people believe their governments were not above interfering with justice. And that is a serious diminution of public confidence and ultimately eroding trust. The third example, a real example, was a false claim that Swedish police had said, "There were 50 'no go' areas in Sweden, filled with illegal immigrants, and these areas were too dangerous for even the police to enter". The Swedish police had said no such thing. The effect was to suggest that the police did not have things under control, that they cannot be relied on to protect society.

You can make those comments, but if you want to refer to facts, then you should get your facts right. But if you were to make you a comment, "Swedish police do not have things under control" or "Singapore Police do not have things under control" you are welcome to say that. That would not be covered by the Bill. But if you say, by specific reference, that these are "no go" areas, and that is either true or it is not true.

Mr David again spoke about Advisory Council, but I hear his latest remarks, and I think Prof Lim Sun Sun also said something similar. I think Prof Lim's suggestion was Advisory Panel to Minister who makes a final order. My point is simply this. There are many examples of how quickly these things move. Nominated Member of Parliament Irshad spoke about what happened in Myanmar. Within, I think, 24 hours, armed mobs were on the streets because of a false claim that two Muslims had raped a Buddhist woman. This led to two days of violence, and left people dead. In Indonesia, there was a rumour that a Chinese woman threw items at a mosque and stopped prayers. Within 24 hours, 14 Buddhist temples were burnt and destroyed.

Another was the falsehood which Mr Singh referred to – the cryptocurrency's founder had died in a car crash. Within five hours, it wiped out $4 billion. If it was on the stock exchange, and say, it relates to a bank in Singapore, and such a rumour, then there would be some public interest in going to deal with it, in terms of how stock exchanges and MAS deals with these issues.

These are things where immediate Executive action will be necessary. It does not mean that the Ministers will move or act without consideration. The amount of consideration depends on the time that they can take; but it has to be quick. This is one of the reasons why it is different Ministers, because one day it could deal with Finance, one day it could deal with Health, one day it could deal with the SAF, and another day it could deal with the Police. So, the domain experts, Ministers advised by civil servants, will have to decide quickly and open themselves up for challenge, if there is a challenge and it has all got to be done in public, quite apart from questions in Parliament.

Other Members, including Mr Christopher de Souza, Mr Cedric Foo, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Saktiandi Supaat have mentioned the need for speed. Some Members have suggested some other alternate third party to have the power to decide whether to allow falsehoods to carry on. You have a third party; the Government deals with the consequences often times of the falsehood. So, you then separate the responsibility of dealing with the consequences, from the power to stop the falsehoods in the first place. Dr Chia Shi-Lu made a similar point.

I think the Executive exercises a power and makes itself accountable to the Courts and to Parliament. It is a completely defensible, open system that places no great power within the Executive and in that context, I think all the nine Workers' Party's Members of Parliament's speeches are remarkable for the fact that they do not deal head-on with the point I made, which is that the powers here are narrower than the powers that currently exist. So, the Armageddon that we were threatened with if this Bill comes into law, I am still trying to see the logical flow of that argument. But I will come back to it.

Mr Louis Ng spoke about cost and Mr Dennis Tan asked about judicial review applications and costs and Mr Murali Pillai talked about parallel procedures providing for judicial oversight. Quite a lot of the points I wanted to make about the speeches by the Workers' Party Members of Parliament have already been made by Mr Pillai in a very lucid way.

Mr Ng's concerns about the cost of appeals, I have already set out in some detail the process and what will happen. But when we talk about judicial review, that is quite a separate exercise. Appeals on question of fact should be fairly straightforward. In fact, in my view, it should be disposed of fairly quickly, but we have provided for three days of free hearing. And after that, for normal fees to be paid to Court and for the Court to have ultimate discretion to decide who should pay the cost. Because if someone carries on and on and on for several days of argument unreasonably, that is something the Court should take into account, for example.

Mr Tan asked about the costs regime for judicial review and an expedited process. Ms Lim made a similar point. I think these are very different processes for appeal on truth versus falsehoods versus a judicial review. There is a whole body of administrative law, principles, and that has to be dealt with – judicial review – in the usual way, and could involve very detailed arguments.

Mr Murali asked about the risk of inconsistency in parallel tracks. I think this is not the only area of the law where that occurs and there are procedures that the Courts can adopt to resolve that.

Ms Lim and Mr Perera, I think they have conflated Directions with criminal punishments, if I am not wrong. Directions simply require you to put up corrections, or take-down the material as appropriate, in an appropriate case. They are not criminal punishments. As I said yesterday, it could appear in your article, "Look there is a correction required on this because this article contains untruths or inaccuracies. And for the truth, go to such and such a website". And a link will be given. And then the reader is open to read this article and he is open to read the other article and decide for himself. So, there are no criminal consequences, unless the person refuses to comply with the Directions.

Mr Chen had suggested that penalties under this Bill are harsh. I would say the existing penalties are comparable. As I said yesterday, the criminal provision under the Bill is actually narrower because it requires both a false statement of fact and for public interest to be impacted.

Er Dr Lee and Mr Melvin Yong asked for clarification on what consequences there will be, for those who inadvertently forward falsehoods. If you do not know that the content was false, then as I said yesterday, there is no question of criminal punishment. You may receive a Correction from the platform to inform you. Look at it like this, it is a falsehood that has travelled to 20,000 people. Does it make sense for the Government to go and look for 20,000 people and ask them to do things? It does not make sense, it is not practical. The Bill is primarily aimed at tech platforms, so the tech platforms are to carry the Corrections and push it down to the people who have received the original falsehood. There will be questions on what technology allows and does not allow.

That is the primary, in essence, focus of the Bill. And in some cases, the tech platforms could be asked to "take down" and ensure the "take down" applies across the board. It simply does not make sense to go and find and look for thousands of people, and individually go to each one of them. It makes sense if there is one creator of falsehoods, deliberately creating and sitting somewhere and pushing out falsehoods, that person can be dealt with.

Ms Irene and Dr Intan asked about other legislation and how they apply. Dr Intan also asked about academics and assurance that academics and researchers can continue to enjoy academic freedom. Mr de Souza asked about plans to assure well-meaning members of society that they would continue to contribute to meaningful civic discussions, and Mr Yam said some of the constituents he has spoken with have asked if the Bill will cover academic research.

My colleague, Minister Ong Ye Kung, gave a comprehensive response on academia. I do not think I really have much to add. I think it is clear. On your specific question, Mr Yam, you asked about historians and mentioned a specific example, Operation Coldstore.

The Bill does not cover academic opinion but, in the same measure, as Minister Ong said, there is no carve out for academics either, for statements which are false. Let us say a historian says, "Communists did not intend to conduct armed insurrection in Singapore". And he relies on some documents. He interprets them one way; that is his opinion. But supposing that there is no such document, and he says that there is such a document and that he manufactured his claim. Then, it is false. I think these situations are fairly clear.

But say, he refers to figures in the documents and there are no such figures and he just invented it. That is false, so the Courts will easily be able to deal with all of these. Or say, he gave an interpretation of a document but on oath he subsequently admits that his interpretation of the documents was misleading, and that he had given an untrue characterisation, and inaccurate reflection of the documents. In such a situation, of course, the academic's reliance on the underlying documents, based on his own admission, would be false.

The remedy in such situations – put up a clarification, for example, that he has admitted that his statements were misleading, an untrue characterisation, inaccurate reflection of the documents. Then, let readers judge for themselves. Ultimately, it depends on an objective interpretation, as I said earlier about the Courts, but that does not preclude challenging conventional wisdom, challenging established thinking. Those are different things.

Assoc Prof Theseira asked about the scope of his review of statements that the Government has made. I do not have the precise figures, but he said that there was a small number of cases where the interpretations were based on facts, rather than facts themselves. I have not seen them. All I can tell you is, I will make two general points: if the facts are accurate – meaning you set out whatever accurately – and the views are expressed based on those facts, it is not within this Bill.

But also, as I said just now, we must not assume that all those statements in the past which have referred to a variety of things, as if this Bill has been drafted with those statements or those statements had anticipated this Bill. Quite a few of those statements may well not come within the rubric of this Bill. And anyway, public interest has got to be established and it does not mean that each time, the Government responds, automatically, public interest was involved or had been involved in the past. That could have been made with a number of considerations in mind. But it does not mean that, automatically, the standard for public interest set out in the Bill would have been invoked. I do not know. I have not looked at it but these are sort of commonsensical points.

And there was a question on Government transparency and Freedom of Information Act. Ms Irene Quay asked about this and Mr Louis Ng asked about it. This is one of my favourite topics – Freedom of Information Act. I think Mr Louis Ng said that a number of countries, including China, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, they all have a Freedom of Information Act. I would say we should consider and this is a serious issue. Who uses the Freedom of Information Act and what has it been used for? And I am making some serious points here. You first start looking at the requests and I will tell you what sort of requests have been made. You can see some governance issues.

Going to the UK, these are some of the requests that were made: (a) total amount spend on Ferrero Rocher chocolates in UK embassies; (b) how many toilet rolls were used during Tony Blair’s administration. Imagine the civil servants would have to go and calculate that across all government agencies in the 10 years that Tony Blair was Prime Minister; (c) what kind of tea is drunk at the Ministry of Defence? (d) what is John Prescott’s weight? He was the Deputy Prime Minister; (e) registration numbers of all vintage lorries held by local authorities; (f) eligible bachelors in the police force between the ages of 35 and 49 by someone who said that she liked men in uniform; (g) statistics of reported sex with sheep and any other animal in Wales, if possible, since records began.

Freedom of information sounds popular. It even sounds sexy. But it basically means anyone can ask for any information, regardless of the reasons why and without having to be responsible as to how they will use it. But the key question for us in Parliament is when we put in a Freedom of Information Act, does it improve governance or does it affect governance? If it can be shown that it improves governance, we should have it. There is no question. But does it? Let me go through the experience of the countries which have put it in. John Lloyd, Australia's Public Service Commissioner, I quote: "Ever since they introduced Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), public servants have a culture of 'don’t put it in writing'", because if you put it in writing, it can be FOIAed "due to the very pernicious Freedom of Information laws”. And I am quoting him.

John Fraser, Australia’s Secretary of the Department of Treasury, said this: “Freedom of Information has made people extremely careful in the public service about what they put on paper and that is sad...Open policy debate means people have got to be candid.” So, it is affecting open debate within government because nobody wants to put it on paper because if you put it on paper, under the Freedom of Information Act somebody will get it.

Lord O’Donnell, former Cabinet Secretary and UK Head of Civil Service: "Civil servants were 'mentally' working on Brexit plans, to avoid the Freedom of Information Act."

Tony Blair, 2010 – he introduced Freedom of Information Act – but after stepping down, he said in 2010: “The Freedom of Information Act…is a dangerous Act [because] governments need to be able to debate, discuss and decide issues in confidence."

So, does it improve trust? I quote you Francis Fukuyama: "Legislators and officials must preserve deliberative space, just as families need to protect their privacy when debating their finances, or how to deal with a wayward child. And they need to be able to do so without donning a straight-jacket of rules specifying how they must talk to each other, and to citizens.”

So, you will get a lot of requests which are very odd, to say the least. Civil servants will have to deal with all these requests at taxpayers’ expense. All of this comes at a cost.

And if you look at the countries and you look at who uses them, it is not the average man in the street. Of course, the average man or woman in the street uses it some of the time but, mostly, it actually ends up privileging and giving more advantage to those who are better organised. What do I mean?

Businesses – they go to the Freedom of Information Act to find out lots of information to help their business. Lawyers, lobbyists, journalists – these are the people who put in the bulk of the requests. And when I give you the examples, it is immediately clear to you why.

Is that the best way of improving governance? May I suggest that a better way is what we have now – this Parliament. You are all representatives who are elected by the people, some of you are appointed as Nominated Members of Parliament. But you are here in a representative Parliament which is sovereign. You can ask for any information that you want and we will either have to give you the information or we will have to explain to you why we cannot give it.

And if you look at the questions that have been raised in this Parliament just in the last two sessions, February to May, we debated since the Budget Debate two Private Members' Motions, one Adjournment Motion by Mr Pritam Singh, data security, election procedures, CPF pay-outs, racial religious harmony, regard for women, including protection, development of the Malay/Muslim community, long-term care financing, mental health, bilateral relations with Malaysia, foreign policy positioning, safe use of personal mobility devices, management of stock exchange, power failures, NUS. You name it. Anything that is happening out there, we are discussing them here, month by month.

And you look at the number of questions. If you cannot have time, you do not have enough time for the Orals, you convert it to Written, it has to be answered. And, again, if it is not answered, there has got to be a good reason. Questions have been raised about Mr Pang – Committees of Inquiry have been held, Government has been questioned on the findings; it is held accountable, it has provided information.

Now, if your residents have questions, or anybody else has questions, they can approach the Members of Parliament, they can approach the Nominated Members of Parliament.

"Representative democracy" means at your level, you go through those questions and if somebody comes and asks you, "I want to know who are all the eligible women in SAF?", I do not think "representative democracy" means you will come here and ask that question. And if you did, I doubt very much if you will remain a Member of Parliament for very long after that.

So, there is a certain responsibility on you to mediate the questions that your residents ask and then come here and ask sensible questions, ask questions that matter for governance, ask questions that matter for society at large and ignore the frivolous questions and, indeed, explain to your resident why those questions ought not to be asked. That makes a lot of sense, rather than an Act and legislation which has, firstly, tied up resources. Let us not talk theory, let us talk reality. I have given you examples in the UK from the Head of Civil Service and very senior people in Australia about how civil servants have started behaving, how discussions within government have been tied up.

And second, the kind of requests that are being made. Can you imagine any Member here asking about how many toilet rolls MHA may have used up? Of what public interest is that? Why should it take up Parliament's time? Why should it take up my civil servants' time? And if you did, if you did ask me, I will ask you to explain why you are asking it.

So, let us have some faith in representative democracy. We have the institutions and we are using them well. We do not need to run after new institutions just because the UK, Australia, China, Pakistan and Zimbabwe have them. Do they help in better governance?

Then, there were questions about, what if Government itself spreads falsehoods? POFMA is here to deal with a serious problem. Everyone accepts it is a serious problem. So, the question of whether there should be POFMA should be dealt with by reference to whether it is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with. The Select Committee says it is a serious issue. I have not heard any speech that says it is not a serious issue.

Do we have a Bill? I think there is very little disagreement that there should be legislation. There is some argument about how that legislation ought to be. I will come to that. But then to say, "Oh, well, what about other aspects, what about Government?" It is not really an answer.

The second point I make is, what is the extent, what is the extent of Government spreading falsehoods, and what has been the damage to society so far in the context of all the evidence that I have laid out to you yesterday, to the House, about how falsehoods have been damaging society after society, country after country around the world?

And assuming Government puts out a falsehood, are there no remedies? I just talked about representative democracy. Can Members here ask questions? Expose? Can you ask for an explanation? Will there have to be an explanation? And if there is no credible explanation, what happens to the Minister or Ministry that puts out that falsehood? That is what debate in Parliament means. That is what questions in Parliament means. That is what an open Parliament means. You deal with the Government in Parliament.

The Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean): If you mislead Parliament, you will have to resign.

Mr K Shanmugam: I am reminded by Senior Minister Teo that if you mislead Parliament, you will have to resign. There are serious processes available to haul up anyone who misleads Parliament – Member of Parliament or Minister. And certainly, on this side of the House, anyone who misleads Parliament will be made to resign.

Let me move on to some things that Mr Low has said. I think it is equally important to see what he did not say. We face a serious problem. The report sets out the problem and it made recommendations. The Government and Parliament have spent the last 18 months considering the problem. The Green Paper was in early January. Mr Low, I think, first does not disagree that this is a serious problem.

Two, I set out how the powers in the Bill are narrower and there is more judicial oversight. I did not hear him disagree with that either. Nevertheless, he says the Government will amass more powers under the Bill. I will say, "How so?" It is directly contrary to what I have said and contrary to what he seems to accept, that the powers under the Bill are narrower. He knows also that the current powers are quite broad. In fact, he said today, the Government can shut down Facebook. So, he knows the current powers are very broad. He has also suggested that making an order under the Bill, it is like chopping off a head first and then reporting to the Emperor. It is typical of Mr Low, it is very colourful. But, in this case, quite inaccurate.

Let me explain. There is an original article, a correction is carried. The article stays in full. It could still be there. The head on the shoulders continues to be there. Even the hands are there, they are not cut off. And the hands can be on the computer to continue to type. And they can complain in public and the person can go to Court and the Minister will have to defend himself in Court.

So, nothing has been chopped off. Even take-down, the same process, even if there is a take-down. And, of course, proportionality has to be shown as to why it is a take-down as opposed to corrections.

The true analogy is this. It is like shining a torch-light, a flood light, on falsehoods. The Minister is given the torch-light to shine. The person who is upset can decide to go to Court and nobody's head is chopped off, nobody's hands are chopped off. It is shining a torch-light.

What is the problem when we ask for transparency – I mean, it is one of the key tenets of the Workers' Party – is this not transparency? You put up an article, the Government says this is not correct, you carry a correction, let your readers judge. What is the problem? The more transparency, the better.

I would say a First World Parliament should deal with the evidence and facts. If the Bill is narrower and there is greater judicial oversight, the crucial question that has been side-stepped by every single one of the Workers' Party Members of the Parliament, is, how does it then create a greater chilling effect? How does it create more fear? Why? It is the elephant in the room that nobody has answered. Two days of rhetoric.

Mr Low says this Bill is going to have a chilling effect and he makes a passing reference to a coffeeshop – I do not think he meant it in this context – he said speech is no longer confined to coffeeshops. That immediately reminded me of another speech by Mr Low. Mr Low is senior to me. I have a great deal of respect for him, in particular, his political skills. He has been in the House for almost as long as me and perhaps we both immediately think in terms of coffeeshops, which is, of course, a key node of local community and talk. So, I think it will be useful to look at what he had said previously.

I think he will remember three years ago, the debate on the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act (AOJPA) in this House. Mr Low said, "This Bill" – referring to that Bill – "covers talk at coffeeshops, makes the Government the sole decision maker of public interest. Elements are similar to the Internal Security Act (ISA)"; all actually completely inaccurate. He said and I quote, "I stand by what I say, based on my understanding of the effect and implication of the Bill if passed. For instance, there is a definition of publication and according to clause 2 of the Bill, a person is said to have published something when he communicates even orally or even if it is just one member of the public, so that I think it applies to people who talk, discuss at coffeeshops." And then he said, "Madam, what I am most uncomfortable with is clause 3(4) of the Bill that gives the Government the right to make statements and allows the Government to become the sole interpreter and decision maker of what constitutes public interest. And this, I smell a similar element in the ISA."

My response at that time, I said this is a strange case. A Minister for Law who puts up the Bill after extensive consultation with the Courts, I kept saying ad nauseam that the law was the same as before it was – common law – and it is intended to be the same on those clauses that you referred to. And Mr Low disagreed with me. He said the law is different in respect of the clauses that you referred to. But he was unable to explain how, why the Bill changed the law, as Mr Low claimed. There were other clauses where there was a change and I explained in that long debate what the changes were and where it was the same.

Likewise, in this Bill, I have explained why the Bill is narrower. No response. As I had said during the AOJPA, how does a person sitting in a coffeshop in Hougang, saying that something is wrong in the Courts, how does that statement impact on either the Judge, the witnesses or the proceedings? I mean, it is common sense. You are trying to frighten people unnecessarily saying that people in coffeshops now cannot talk after the AOJPA was passed. And they cannot sit there and have their coffee and talk about Court cases. I said that is completely inaccurate.

It has been three years since then. Coffeshops, I think, have grown louder since then. I do not think it has prevented talk. So, after all that talk of chill and fear, I can tell you coffeeshops in Yishun do not even think of the AOJPA. And I am sure it is the same in Hougang and Aljunied and everywhere else in Singapore. Quite vibrant and we want it to be so. So, what Mr Low says about this Bill amassing power is not quite right and Mr Low must know that. Just as he would have known that what he said about the AOJPA actually was not accurate. So, what is the purpose of saying this, because people listening to Mr Low might be misled?

Let me move on to the Pioneer Generation Package (PGP) and Merdeka Generation Package (MGP). He said that if one says Government introduced the PGP and MGP to buy votes, that may be covered by the Bill. Or to say that older Singaporeans are unable to accept a non-Chinese Prime Minister would be covered and can be used selectively by the Government to target statements by the Government's opponents. I say to Mr Low, come on, you must know, everybody here knows, none of these are covered by the Bill.

So, let us have a debate that deals with the terms of the Bill. Let us not try and get people misled by using examples which have nothing to do with the Bill. These are all comments, even under the Telecoms Act which was in existence all this while.

But there is one statement which Mr Low made which is inaccurate and seriously inaccurate. He said on POHA, and I quote, "When POHA was passed in Parliament, the original purpose was only to protect individuals. But a few years ago, the Government then tried to include Government agencies as one of the groups protected by this Act." That is, on its face, not correct. And it is most unfair. It really should not have been made without basis. Mr Low is not a lawyer so maybe please bear with me.

POHA has got, primarily, provisions on harassment, people getting harassed. Mr Low, sit back and think about it. How can the Government be harassed in the context of POHA? How is it possible for the Government to be harassed? And the Government has never claimed that it can be harassed, nor has it brought a single action on the basis of it being harassed. If we had tried it, we would have been laughed out of Court. There was a subsequent exchange between the Law Ministry and the Workers' Party where we said harassment provisions cannot apply to the Government. But POHA, the Bill, the Act, also contains section 15, which does not have anything to do with harassment. It has got to do with statements and refers to statements and persons.

Mr Singh asked me, does this Bill apply to corporates? And I said, the Interpretation Act will apply. So, Interpretation Act has got to apply and, depending on the context, it can apply to corporates or it may not apply to corporates. Obviously, when it comes to harassment, it cannot apply to the Government. But when it comes to statements, our view was that it can apply to the Government. So, harassment, stalking would be sections 3 to 7 of POHA as it existed, and section 15, the Government believed, applied to the Government but not any of the other provisions. And the Government has never sought to rely on any of the other provisions.

But on section 15, in the Court of Appeal, two Judges thought that it did not cover the Government, the Chief Justice thought that it did, and the Government accepted that view. It is public, it is transparent, this is rule of law. We intended and we believed, but if the Court disagrees with us, we just accept it. That is that. But we have never suggested or tried to rely on any of the harassment provisions. Nor can we. It would be absurd for us to try and rely on the harassment provisions.

On taking people to Court, Mr Low and Mr Singh said Ministers can make decisions but how often will people take Ministers to Court?

The first point, I said orders are, as a matter of looking at the framework, likely to be made primarily against tech companies. They certainly can challenge the Government. The second point, there is a very serious logical fallacy at the heart of this point and what is that? The point that both of you make, is that people do not want to go to Court. But what you are proposing will require people to go to Court in every single case because you want the Government to sue them.

So, each time the Government wants to do something, somebody has to be sued whether or not the person wants to go to Court. People, they put up a falsehood, maybe they did not really, after getting the notice, they just want to accept it, they really do not want the fuss of having to go to Court, but you will require them to be sued and brought to Court, every single time. That is the difference between your proposal and the Government's proposal.

The Government's proposal – we intervene, we ask for clarifications. In some cases, we ask for a take-down. The person who is on the other end will decide, "Am I going to challenge?" And he knows he has got three days free in Court, he knows that on the issue of falsehoods, he does not even need a lawyer, so it is very low cost and he has got to decide. If he wants to challenge, he can challenge. If he does not want to challenge, he does not have to challenge.

Which is better for the citizen do you think?

So, how does your proposal make sense if your true objection is, well, you know, people are reluctant to go to Court? Then you should be supporting the Government's position. Leave it to the people who want to go to Court. And do you know we are talking theory here. I told you yesterday a large number of these people would not be found. Quite a few might be overseas. They might be foreign state actors. They might be people working with foreign state actors. There are a variety of people. So, it is more sensible, what we are proposing.

Let me share something with Mr Low which will explain what we are really doing. Something that Mr Lee Kuan Yew said a very long time ago. He was making a speech in 1963 in the days when Barisan was active. I think the opponents were shouting, disrupting when he was speaking, but they did so while remaining in the dark. They wanted to disrupt and engage in rowdyism but did not themselves want to be seen. Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, can I show the video please?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please proceed. [A video was shown to hon Members.]

Mr K Shanmugam: Why am I showing this? What happened then? What Mr Lee said is very relevant here and was in many ways an inspiration for the central thinking. When people say things which are false and hide, what is the best remedy? You shine a powerful light, the light of truth, to show up the falsehoods. The lies will be shown up. People then can decide for themselves what is true and what is false.

Why is the Workers' Party against that? Is that not a good thing to have? Surely, you do not want these people who put out falsehoods to hide and mislead others. So, you want to shine a powerful light. That power already exists and broader powers exist now. I explained why we are putting up this Bill. It is primarily to shine light on the various falsehoods that circulate so that people can understand the truth, so that the infrastructure of fact would be powerful, so that democracy itself is protected.

Let me move to a different point. Mr Singh, I thank him for his clarifications on Recommendation 12 and where they stand. I think that has got to be read together with Mr Perera's clarifications. In essence, as I read the speeches, the main point of difference with the Government appears to be that we agree it is a problem, we agree it is serious, we agree legislation is necessary. In fact, I do not even think there is much disagreement on the provisions but in terms of sequence – let the Court decide first instead of the Minister, whereas the Government's position is Ministers decide, subject to an appeal which will be quick.

What the Government has proposed achieves the objective, subjects the Government to oversight, strikes the right balance and, in fact, is a narrowing of the powers from what they are today.

If you apply the Workers' Party's proposal of the Courts first, you cannot be sure that you can act speedily. You will have to bring a person to Court every single time, and that is even without considering other issues. I have said foreign agents. Who do you sue? How long will it take to find the originator? How do you serve?

Supposing you have rules which deal with parties and service, and ex parte and inter partes hearing, and when you look for the originator and when you do not, it gets very complex. Are you sure that it can be done within a matter of hours? No real explanation from the Workers' Party on an important point.

In both approaches, the Court is involved. It is not as if the Court is ousted in one approach. In the Government's approach, you get certainty of speed. The respondent can decide if he wants to go to Court. In your proposal, the respondent has no choice – can become a very complicated exercise, taking time, even if we resource the Courts in such a way that there is a judge on standby all the time. These issues are not academic. So, how is your proposal better than what the Government has proposed?

Assoc Prof Goh made the point about fact and opinion. He said Ministers make the decision but, not accustomed to applying jurisprudence, would they all come and consult me? So, how are they going to act? Ministers make their decisions, Ministries make their decisions based on the law and there is maybe advice by in-house counsel, which there are in some Ministries, and by AGC, where necessary. It all depends on the speed with which they have to act. They have to weigh the importance of acting immediately, the amount of advice they need, and they will be advised by their civil servants. If they get it wrong, they get overruled by the Court. So, what is the issue?

Assoc Prof Goh gave two examples, of CPF and Mr Nicholas Lim. He said the corrections have helped; he asserted it. Does he know for a fact that the corrections have helped completely cure the original falsehoods? Does he know how many people continue to believe the falsehoods without knowledge of the clarifications?

I showed how falsehoods sink in. The Select Committee Report sets that out. My speech yesterday set it out. People who believe in the falsehoods exist in different universes from people who read the clarifications. If everyone was like you, Assoc Prof Goh, we would not need a lot of the laws we have in Singapore. We would have no problems. But, unfortunately, there are people – well-meaning people, highly educated people – who do not keep up with current affairs to the level that you do. They read what comes to them. You cannot blame them; people lead busy lives. They read what they get.

I had explained yesterday, the Select Committee Report goes into some considerable detail – heuristic tendencies, shortcuts, depends on who you get it from, how authentic the source looks, and nowadays things can be made to look very authentic. It looks as if it is from CNN, Washington Post. I gave you examples like New York Times and Washington Post who were themselves misled and published some fake stories as real.

Assoc Prof Goh did not explain what is the problem with carrying the clarifications. What is the problem? Helps transparency rather than putting in terms of Armageddon. Clause 4(f) he referred to. I gave a lot of examples yesterday. Clause 4(f), he said, is very wide. But in the first place, you got to show that it was a falsehood. And if it is a falsehood, 4(f) is the second gate. Why do you want to protect falsehoods? What do you stand to gain by protecting falsehoods?

You expressed a lot of concern that, well, pushing this down may not be useful. Leave that to the judgement of the people who want to push it down. You may not agree with it philosophically but that is not a point of principle. The point of principle is that it is a falsehood that needs to be clarified. If we believe it is necessary, then the next question is proportionality and the Courts, if necessary.

We are not seeking to force down orthodoxy. I think we are debating at two different levels. No one is talking about forcing orthodoxies. We are talking about whether Mr Nicholas Lim's father was influential. That is not a question of orthodoxy; it is a question of fact. You bring in arguments of public health – how do they apply? I repeat myself – is it true, is it false, is it an opinion?

Assoc Prof Goh also suggested there is no need for speed. I suggest he reads the Select Committee Report. It may not look urgent but if it sinks in, that is difficult to dislodge. So, even when it does not look urgent, you know the virality of falsehoods. They spread, you need to intervene quickly to break the virality because the people who read the falsehoods may not necessarily read the corrections or the clarifications.

We have seen this happen over and over again. There is a well-known saying, and I quote, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes". That is the difference between truth and falsehoods. That is why you need to intervene quickly. Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong spoke yesterday about the different universes that saw the truth and falsehoods on the Macron campaign. The Select Committee Report is full of that.

All the Workers' Party Members pivot in their speech very quickly. First of all, they do not deal with the point that the Bill is narrower in powers. Secondly, they do not deal with the fact that there is greater judicial oversight. They pivot very quickly to the broad points on free speech and that, with respect, overlooks completely the point that what we are talking about is falsehoods, turbo-charged by bots, trolls, fake accounts.

So, unfortunately, this debate, for all the rhetoric, there has been no engagement on the key issues on why there should be free speech in this area. What speech are you protecting? Why are these things entitled to free speech? The real point is not the speeches about the importance of free speech – which no one can argue about – but whether we should act immediately to stop the flow of falsehoods and then be subject to the Court, or whether it should go to Court first. That, in essence, is the only difference and I have dealt with that earlier. It comes down, after these two days, to that one difference, really.

Mr Png's speech, I listened, and I was a little bit astonished as to whether he had read the same Bill that I have. He starts with the "big brother" government; it gives "big brother" government considerable latitude to silence the common man; catches opinions, comment. Really? You have been listening to the debate, you have read the statements. This Bill covers opinions and comments? I think you did not want the Bill and its provisions to interfere with the flow of the rhetoric. And you also referred to what happens during elections. My colleague Minister Iswaran has pointed out, during elections, the powers are exercised by civil servants, not Ministers. So, that is why I said I do not know which Bill you are referring to, and whether you are interested in dealing substantively with the Bill we are dealing with, with a proper debate, or just came with a prepared speech which has no relevance to the debate.

And I would suggest that the hon Member stop misquoting what I said in the CNA interview. The point is simply this: every time you elect the government, you vest them with a whole lot of powers, including the power to declare war in extremis. How they should use their powers is not something I can vouch for. What a future government will do with that power is not something I can vouch for. I can only say we look at these problems, we need this legislation in place, and we have to deal with them, just like we deal with a whole variety of issues, just like all the other legislation that we have. Any legislation, any legislative power, any government in place for five years can abuse. It is a commonsensical point.

The rest of the Workers' Party Members' speeches repeat the points about chilling effect, it conflates opinion with facts, overlooks having a correction does not necessarily mean the original post is censored and the author can continue to post and give new viewpoints. Really none of them bothered to deal with the current position and the important points I have made.

Listening to the speeches, one phrase struck me – Mr Perera and his reference to "industrial freezer". It is not free speech which will go into deep freeze. It strikes me that some stock phrases are kept in deep freeze by Mr Perera and his colleagues and brought out of the chiller once in a while and dutifully repeated. Let me explain.

Let me explain what has been said previously. On Administration of Justice (Protection) Act (AOJP), Ms Sylvia Lim, and I quote, "Such a spectacle if applied to this Bill will clearly have a chilling effect on public discourse. Are we not using a sledgehammer to kill an ant? It would be intimidating not just to persons on the receiving end of such investigations but to society at large. The upshot of reducing the role of the courts and vesting draconian powers in the Executive...", none of that is true, by the way, "...is to leave Singaporeans at the mercy of administrative discretion. We would be one step closer to being a police state". That was in 2016, very extreme words. Since 2016, I ask Members, have Singaporeans been suffering at the mercy of an administrative discretion? Are we living in a quasi-police state?

What happened in 2016? AOJP largely codified existing law, introduced procedural changes which were necessary and classified how offences were to be investigated. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh, not to be outdone, I quote, "As an ordinary person who relies on the law to protect my family, I find this proposed law cast too large and a fearful shadow on the whole of Singapore and diminishes my sense of security for my family. Reading this Bill as an ordinary person sends a chill down my spine". In the last three years, fearful shadow over the whole of Singapore, chill down his spine every day as he goes to NUS, despite my clarification that before and after the Bill the law was largely the same.

Mr Singh, I quote: "Viewed in totality, the Government's approach gives it significant powers to strike fear in the heart of ordinary citizens."

Mr Dennis Tan, I quote: "This Bill, if passed, creates a huge shadow of fear hanging over Singaporeans who may otherwise have justified opinions on certain topical issues." Has that come to pass, Mr Tan? You are a lawyer, you would know. I suspect not. In fact, I would take a bet with you. If you go out there and talk to the man-in-the-street and tell him AOJP, what do you think the answer will be?

An hon Member: "Li kong see mi; kong see mi".

Mr K Shanmugam: "Kong see mi". Thank you.

Mr Perera, not to be outdone, "The result for our democracy from the passage of this Bill and the attendant publicity could well be that no one who does not have $100,000 in cash to spare will dare to speak up about any issue where there is even the slightest risk or perceived risk of prosecution under this law."

Earlier, I referred to Mr Low and his references to Internal Security Act when speaking on the AOJP as well.

With the passage of the years, it can be seen, all of these statements were quite unconnected with reality and quite extreme. Meanwhile, the standing of our Judiciary has been going up. Lawyers, including Mr Tan, make money partly because of the good standing of our Judiciary which was sought to be protected by that Bill.

Mr Perera also said, by reference to other countries, "Why are we taking a tighter approach when they are going the other way?"

I would say, in the last three years, would he have preferred the trajectory of the UK versus our trajectory, whether in the Courts or in general? I think there comes a time – we were a colony of the UK – but that comes a time when we have to learn to think for ourselves what is good for us and stop being colonised in our minds.

Let me refer to another piece of legislation. The Films Act was amended in 1988. The year 1988 does not sound right because I am not sure Mr Low was in Parliament in 1988. Probably not. So, I will say this but maybe I will have to change the date.

The year 1998, is it? I do not know. I quote: "...Bill further deprives the Opposition of their right to make use of other media to reach out to the people in order to express their views on the nation, society and the Government. The PAP introduces this Amendment Bill just as the people of Singapore are beginning to avail themselves of some different views and comments from SCV. The Government has been telling the people of Singapore that our information is open. Our people tune in to foreign TV programmes through SCV. However, after this Bill is passed, if SCV is to telecast any programme that contains unfavourable comments on the PAP which are considered to be bias and the office in charge is accordingly found to be guilty of an offence, then is this what the PAP Government means by saying our information is open?"

It has been many years. Telecast of critical programmes continues unaffected. Has there been any rampant prosecution of SCV officers? I leave Members to judge for themselves and, if I have gotten the dates wrong, I apologise.

An hon Member: 1998.

Mr K Shanmugam: Nineteen-ninety-eight. So, you were in Parliament, Mr Low. So, really, I think it is good for us to have the debate. Really, I was hoping yesterday and I had made this point in a very deliberate way that there is no profit of any sort, including political profit, in trying to allow these lies to proliferate and damage our infrastructure of fact. It will damage the institutions and, frankly, no mainstream political party will benefit from this. It will damage any party that wants to consider itself mainstream and credible. Everyone will be damaged. You have seen what happens in the US, you have seen what happens to the UK. The centre gets hollowed out. It is the extremes that benefit.

And it is not a political exercise. It is an exercise to maintain our society and the values and have a set of honest debates on what should be the way forward – honest debates on social policy, honest debates on economic policy, honest debates on how we should structure society. But it should be based on a foundation of truth, foundation of honour and foundation where we keep out the lies. That is what this is about. This is not about the Workers' Party or the PAP. Today it is about Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that ends my answers to the questions in the response speech and, with the support of the House, I beg to move. [Applause]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

9.21 pm

Mr Pritam Singh: I would like to first thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply to some of the queries that were put out. I think, firstly, in general, we had an exchange about the proposal that the Workers' Party put forward with the Courts as the first arbiter. The key issue for us was, as I said in my speech, to balance the urgency of moving against an online falsehood and having a decision-maker that is more acceptable than an unchecked Executive. That is the position.

The second point, I think the Minister raised it a few times in his speech and I believe the remark was also made by hon Member Mr Seah Kian Peng about the word "narrow", that the POFMA Bill actually narrows the Government's powers. Well, I can understand why that word was used but I think very reasonable people, both inside and outside this House, may suggest that the word ought to be sharpened.

If we look at Prof Goh Yihan's submission to the Select Committee – and this is public information, it is a matter of Parliamentary record – paragraph 27:

"I set out below a summary of the discussion above...," he goes. He looked at the Telecommunications Act, Penal Act, Sedition Act, Internal Security Act. Do they all cover online falsehoods? "Yes", they do. Under "Additional requirements", in the case of Telecommunications Act – Knowledge of falsity and fabrication, does it deal with the falsehoods itself? – "No." Under Penal Code – knowingly spread falsehoods that concern race and religion, does it deal with the falsehood itself? – the answer was "No". Internal Security Act – covers only falsehoods likely to cause public alarm, does it deal with the falsehood itself? – "No."

But under POFMA, these matters are actually resolved because the powers are scoped. We can, again, like I said, reasonable people can have different views about which words to use but one can also argue that under POFMA, the Government's powers are actually sharpened.

The other point – it is unfortunate that I did not come to this House prepared to debate the freedom of information and the points that Minister made about freedom of information but I will try to provide some responses from—

Mr K Shanmugam: Okay, I have no problem. We can do it at some other point in time.

Mr Pritam Singh: Sure. But I think there are certain things which I can probably cover at least in a cursory, or slightly more than a cursory manner. If we look at FOI from memory, I think there are about 110 countries in the world that have some sort of freedom of information regime. Minister is right. The regime must work for Singapore. But out of these 110 countries, about 80 of them only introduced an FOI or FOI-like legislation over the last 30 years. In some cases, there have been successes, in some others there have not.

But the FOI cannot be seen as a silver bullet. In the same way, POFMA is not a silver bullet. But it is one part of an eco-system, one part of citizen engagement which, I submit, is actually very important and I think it helps in this building of trust and not just from one government to another. It also raises the standard of conversation amongst members of the public. That is my position on it.

When I was actually studying for my juris doctor, post-graduate programme in SMU, there was a requirement for students to undertake 80 years of—sorry, I beg your pardon, 80 hours – thank you, Prime Minister – that is too long [Laughter] – 80 hours of internship experience. So, I got in touch with some friends and I did an internship at the Central Information Commission in New Delhi. This Commission actually looks into right to information issues. That experience, yes, it was only for a short three to four weeks, but it was very revealing because you had ordinary members of the public actually coming up with not ridiculous requests but serious requests about why certain commitments made by the government were not followed through or what happened in certain cases where certain information was actually supposed to be given but was not given. I saw another side of FOI – granted only four weeks.

Minister raised some examples about Ferrero Roche, consumption of Ferrero Roche Rock chocolates, toilet paper. But we also have to remember that some of these requests actually uncovered issues like the expenses scandal, the Member of Parliament's expenses' scandal in the UK. So, while there is certainly a case to be made for some ridiculous requests which, of course, under most right to Information Acts can be dealt with separately and —

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Singh, could you please be brief with your points?

Mr Pritam Singh: Yes, yes, I am rounding up, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker: It is pretty late already.

Mr Pritam Singh: The fact is that exemptions are not out of the question in freedom of information legislation. Of course, there is also the issue of questions that can be answered and cannot be answered and the Government can just put down its reasons why certain matters cannot be answered. So, I do apologise for having to go through this very quickly but I thought it deserves a reply.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Shanmugam.

Mr K Shanmugam: Yes. On the first point, Mr Singh, I think we understand each other. You said it is "sharpened", I explained why everything that we want to do under the Bill can be done under existing legislation and subsidiary legislation, save for the point on territoriality. This is something that you can look at the Bill and the current legislation and work out. It is not a matter of, I think, opinion. So, I will just leave it at that.

On the freedom of information, I do not think we want to go into a lengthy debate. I answered because two Members of Parliament, maybe more than two raised it as fairly substantive points. I suppose one example that you highlighted is MP expenses' scandal. The main point I made is, Parliament is the representative. So, I can understand why maybe they did not raise that issue themselves because it is related to themselves. But I assume on every other issue, Parliament is in a position to raise and, thankfully in Singapore, you know, we do not do any special favours for Members of Parliament.

India has got a Freedom of Information. I think Mr Singh would have followed the news as to how much fake news is in vogue, particularly in the current period.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Deputy Speaker, first, let me thank the Minister for his effort to research into what I had said in Parliament 20 years ago. Yes, what you have quoted me, those were concerns that I had expressed in Parliament and not only my concerns, but concerns also from outside the Parliament. I have also articulated in the process of studying the provisions of the Bill what possibly the Government can abuse some of the provisions in the Bill which I have articulated, which you have quoted me, and I stand by what I said.

I will clarify certain points that he made; some of the legal points, my colleagues will help to clarify those as well. First, he referred to the part in my speech on coffeeshops. I talked about the coffeeshop discussion on politics in relation to the advancement of new media. What I am saying is that, today, political discourse is not restricted to coffeeshops alone. People can go to the Internet and so on. So, it is a progress rather than whispering around. I do not know why he took issue with that.

Okay, he said I talked about chopping off heads. First of all, the Minister makes that decision on whether it is falsehood and he interprets any statement whether it is a statement of fact or whether it is opinion, and he makes a decision to say, "Okay, let's take it down" or "Put out a statement of correction." The decision is made. It is the same as chopping off heads! You decide what you are going to do.

Later on, of course, the person can go to the Courts. But the fact is that the person would have to abide by the Direction of the Minister first. That is why in Chinese, we say "先斩后奏", so you chop off the head and decide what to do, you take action and you have to act. Subsequently, yes, you go and appeal. That is what I meant by chopping off heads.

Thirdly, he is taking issue with me about me mentioning the Internal Security Act (ISA). My view about POFMA and how I compared it with ISA before this House, basically, I see some fundamentals in there. In ISA, the Executive, a Minister, basically decides what is security, what is national interest, and then, say, "Okay, you should be locked up. Detention without trial, without going through the Court." Similarly, you can also appeal to the Court. So, the Executive decides what action to be taken and the action is effected.

Under POFMA, similarly the Minister decides. He looks at the circumstances and decides what is in the public interest, what is statement, and decides, "Okay, this is the action to be taken", without having to go to Court. So, to me, there are some fundamental similarities here.

The important thing is, POFMA deals with freedom of expression because people say something, and you decide whether this is correct, whether it is factual. It can be sometimes not very sure what is factual or not. I gave those examples; Minister said those are opinions, not facts. I am not sure in some interpretation or saying in a different way, it can be interpreted as facts and thereby, comes under falsehood.

These are some things which are not very clear. Of course, the Minister said that he would assure this House and there would be subsidiary legislation, but the question is, there is a grey area which we are worried about.

That is all, Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.

Mr K Shanmugam: Firstly, on coffeeshop and new media, I was not taking issue. I said the Member's reference to coffeeshop triggered in my memory a previous reference to coffeeshop. Secondly, I do not really want to debate the ISA but it is fundamentally different, and you cannot go to Court on the ISA. Third, on facts, I accept in good faith that Mr Low has some lack of clarity on what are facts and opinions. But then, he has got to rely on the law and what the Courts have said. So, I think we can leave it at that.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. In the analysis of Government actions against misinformation over the past few years, I found that sometimes, Ministries were imprecise in their language. They would label, for example, differences of opinion as false. What I am suggesting is would the Minister consider working with the whole-of-Government to ensure that once the Act is in place, Ministries do not label differences of opinion as false, because I think it has real meaning. If you call it false, the public will expect that you should be using the Act against it. And if it is not at that level, maybe just call it a misrepresentation or what you wish, instead.

Mr K Shanmugam: Two things. Assoc Prof Theseira, I thought you were my friend. I really do not want more work. I have enough as it is. The second point is, you can have false opinions. Your opinions could be wrong, your opinions could be false, but that is not covered by the Bill. But I have no doubt that any Minister who wants to exercise his powers under the Bill when it becomes an Act and if Parliament agrees, will have to be very careful, because, while I have not gone into it in great detail – it is primarily something that might be used against tech companies and platforms. It does not make sense to use it against individuals. You think the tech companies would not challenge? So, when the challenge comes, the Minister will have to justify and it is going to be something that Ministers would have to think carefully about, take proper advice and act only when it is really something that he can stand on.

That is why we have not sought to, as I said yesterday, over-egg the pudding in terms of trying to define fact and what is not fact. We have relied on existing jurisprudence and leave it to the Courts, if necessary. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Okay, I think I will allow three more. Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The Minister referred to what I and some others have said in the 2016 debate on the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill. Of course, I do not want to belabour the House with that debate, which is over. But the fact is that those concerns that we had about how codifying the law has changed the common law by making contempt arrestable offence, bringing the Police in, giving the Minister immunity – I think those points have been made and I leave the public to judge what was said in that debate.

Two specific points on today's debate. First of all, the Minister earlier referred to what Mr Low had mentioned regarding the Court case where the Government tried to use POHA. The circumstances, if I remembered it, were the Government tried to apply under POHA against a falsehood rather than for harassment. I wonder if the Minister could confirm that actually, what the Court of Appeal said in its decision was that it examined what was said during the Second Reading of the Bill. And Justice of Appeal Andrew Phang, if I am not wrong, said that if the Government had intended to use POHA for any relief, it should have been made clear during the Second Reading of the Bill. And looking at what was recorded in the Hansard, the Minister in fact had only referred to scenarios involving vulnerable victims. So, the Court of Appeal came to the conclusion that looking at the intention that was expressed during the Second Reading in the Hansard, the government was not a proper person to apply because that was not the intention that was articulated in Parliament, which, of course, raises concerns about the effect of Hansard today for future actions of the Government.

And finally, if I may ask him to clarify one point. He mentioned in his round-up that during an appeal under POFMA, proportionality would have to be shown. I believe he did say something like this. So, I would like him to clarify that because looking at the grounds of appeal, it does not look as if the High Court can look into proportionality. So, is it actually under judicial review and not at the appeal?

Mr K Shanmugam: I thank the Member for raising the points. The third point is easily answered. Proportionality relates to the kind of remedies that might be directed like take-down or corrections, and it would be judicial review. Appeal is just on a question of fact or falsehood. And it is a straight appeal. So, the Court can look and substitute its view for that of the Minister; that is what I meant by straight appeal. So, proportionality is more the traditional exercise of government powers; and that would be judicial review. So, thank you for asking for that clarification.

The other point that Ms Lim made, in terms of section 15, I have not looked at the Court of Appeal judgment recently or the Hansard, but based on memory, what I had said in Parliament is, the word "persons" in POHA must be interpreted in accordance with the Interpretation Act. That is, I think, on the record and that is what we stand by. If you go to the Interpretation Act, it sets out how "persons" are defined.

So, the Court of Appeal had to look at the context of the Act and look at who it applied to. And it took a different interpretation from what I had thought was correct, or what we had intended. But that is the Court and we are bound by the Court. They did go through the Hansard and they applied the Interpretation Act, but they looked at it and they said "persons", applying it here, does not include corporate entities. So, okay, if that is their view. But it is not as if we misled Parliament. We said Interpretation Act. It has got to be decided in accordance with the Interpretation Act and they decided according to the Interpretation Act, except that they took a different view from us. And we stick by that.

But that is only for section 15. For the rest of POHA, there is no question that the Government could have relied upon — As I have said, it is absurd to suggest that the Government could be harassed. Legally, it does not make any sense, if I could say that. And I note your points on the Contempt Act.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Okay, last two interventions. Mr Leon Perera and Mr Png Eng Huat.

Mr Leon Perera: I thank the hon Law Minister for his comments. Just three brief clarifications. Firstly, I would just like to ask the hon Minister to comment on the argument I made in my speech about circularity. I think it has been said that the Ministers make decisions, Part 3, Part 4 directives, they will be held to account by the electorate, they are accountable to Parliament. I did make the argument that actually by using a part 4 directive to stop the circulation of potentially embarrassing information, the presence of a chilling effect on free expression – which I think we have talked about – the possibility that efforts at investigative journalism will be cowed due to the lack of a public interest defence within the Bill, as a result of that, potentially embarrassing information may not come into circulation and that may, in fact, partly insulate the Minister from electoral accountability and may even affect the composition of the Parliament that is meant to hold the Minister accountable. So, I just wanted to ask for the Minister's comment on that.

The second one is very simple. I would like to ask the Minister what recourse would a victim of Government-originated fake news have. Here, I am not talking about defamation action that could be taken against individual Ministers. I am talking about fake news that may originate from a Ministry, from a Government agency. I know the Minister said that this does not happen very much, it is a question of scale. It could happen, it may happen more in the future. What recourse would a victim of such Government fake news have. POHA is apparently not a recourse, defamation may not be a recourse.

The third and last one, the Minister mentioned that compared to some of the existing remedies, the penalties and the powers are actually a scoping down. I think clause 45 of the Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Act were mentioned. Clause 45 of the Telecommunications Act, very briefly, let me read it: "Any person who transmits or causes to be transmitted a message which he knows to be false or fabricated shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction", and so on and so on. Now, there are two senses in which actually the definition of that is widened in POFMA. Because POFMA allows for a misleading statement to deemed false, meaning a collection of true statements that are misleading could be deemed false. The Telecommunications Act said just "fabricated" or "false". Also, POFMA says that if you have reason to believe that something is false. The Telecommunications Act just says that he knows to be false; so, he must have knowledge, not reason to believe.

The Broadcasting Act, and I refer to Prof Goh Yihan's submission, does not apply to non-licensees, it does not apply to websites run by individuals, persons communicating via closed platform groups like WhatsApp, Telegram and so on. In this regard, viz-a-viz the criminal penalties against individuals, which is in section 7 of POFMA, POFMA will appear to widen powers and penalties, insofar as that is concerned viz-a-viz Telecommunications Act and Broadcasting Act. So, I would just like the Minister to comment on that.

Mr K Shanmugam: The first point on falsehoods and public interest, that an investigative journalist is prevented from publishing something that is embarrassing. I think I would say this: it could be embarrassing, it may not be embarrassing. All those are subsidiary factors.

The primary factors, as far as the Bill is concerned is, it has got to be false, and it has got to be of public interest. It could additionally be embarrassing, but that is an irrelevant consideration.

Your point, I think really, if I understand it, is, it may not be false, and it may not be of public interest, but because it is embarrassing, a Minister tries to stop it. I think that is the point you really make.

Let us follow that example through. A journalist is stopped. Now, a journalist can go to court and say, "Why am I being stopped? What is false?" because the Minister's Direction has got to set out what is false. On the face of it you can tell whether it is credible or not credible. If on the face of it, it is not false, you think the journalist will keep quiet? An investigative journalist? He will go to Court. I have said in nine days, you can be in Court. And the Minister will suffer greater embarrassment. You know why? Because not only did he try to suppress something embarrassing, but now he would be shown to have used and abused his powers, and overruled by a Court. So, double blow. It is far worse for a Minister to do that. It is very serious.

Not many Ministers in many countries will survive that kind of action. If a Minister had tried to suppress and the Court says this was neither in the public interest, nor was it false, I think not many Ministers will survive that, particularly if it comes out that it was for an extraneous purpose. And judicial review is available as well. So that’s the first answer.

That is why I keep emphasising that the argument does not seem to have engaged, because, Mr Perera, you and your colleagues talk about it as if the Ministers decide and that is the end of the matter. But I keep emphasising that there is a sword hanging over with the Courts; and if we get it wrong, we will be publicly embarrassed. And we have deliberately made the test lower as in, it is an appeal rather than a judicial review. So, the Ministers put their personal reputations at stake every single time a decision is made. It is a very high onus.

Second, what recourse does one have if the Government is the originator of fake news? I have dealt with it fairly extensively in my round-up speech; I am not going to repeat it again.

Sir, third, the penalties. Mr Perera said compared with section 45 of the Telecommunications Act, the definition is actually broader because it is misleading. Here the Bill, it is both misleading and false. I explained it just now, misleading but it must come back to being false.

The second point is, I consider it to be narrower because of the intention. You have two things to prove in terms of intention, not just the misleading falsehood part, but also public interest. In the Telecommunications Act, the knowledge of harm to public interest is not necessary. So, there are two mens rea requirements under the Bill, as opposed to one mens rea requirement under the Telecommunications Act.

You then said Broadcasting Act, non-licensees, closed platform groups and all these are not covered. I think you missed my speech. I explained it in some careful detail yesterday how the current Broadcasting Act can through class licensing scheme and through subsidiary legislation be made to apply to all.

I repeat, one amendment to the legislation in Parliament would be necessary to bring us to the same position that we are under the Bill, and that one amendment is on territoriality, to extend it to people outside. And I do not think anyone here has a problem with that amendment.

So, when I say this and I said it yesterday, I said it advisedly. But in order to explain it to Members, I also then went into some detail as to how it could have been done. If you want, I would send you a copy of my speech as to how the Broadcasting Act could have been with subsidiary legislation and the class licensing and so on, could have applied to all of these people while remaining much broader in scope, and while the judicial review or the judicial oversight is more restricted.

If what this Government really wanted was just to amass powers, why do we put up a legislation for debate that gives the Courts greater oversight? Ask yourself that.

If we had come to the Parliament and said, "We now want to extend the Broadcasting Act to extra-territoriality, how much debate you think there would have been? And then, that is subsidiary legislation. You could ask us questions, and we would explain this is the Act and we are doing subsidiary legislation to extend. Why are we reducing our powers in that sense and allow, saying the Courts should have greater oversight? Precisely for the points that some of you made. It is not just this Government, it is the future governments. It is a system; it is an institution. So, we want to set in place more judicial oversight as these powers get exercised, but that does not mean that the powers are being expanded. Powers are actually being narrowed. Mr Pritam Singh said sharper, but they are narrowed. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Last one, Mr Png Eng Huat.

Mr Png Eng Huat: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Just a clarification for the Minister. Would the Minister agree that POFMA would not be able to prevent an incumbent party from spreading falsehood to influence the outcome of an election, as in the example I gave for GE 2015? Also, I did mention about the alternate authority in my speech, so you could check the Hansard.

Mr K Shanmugam: Let me try and understand this question: POFMA will not prevent the incumbent party from spreading falsehoods. Well, POFMA deals with falsehoods which are affecting institutions. So, if the falsehoods affect the PAP or the Workers' Party, that does not come within POFMA, regardless of who spreads them. You may be "POHAed" but not "POFMAed".

Mr Png Eng Huat: — but POFMA is supposed to address falsehoods during elections?

Mr K Shanmugam: I would suggest that, I really think I have given the best clarification I can, Sir.

9.54 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye".

Hon Members say "Aye".

Mr Deputy Speaker: To the contrary say "No".

Some hon Members say "No".

Mr Deputy Speaker: I think the "Ayes" have it. Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to call for a Division, please.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh, instead of claiming a Division, would you want your dissent or abstention to be recorded? Or do you prefer a Division?

Mr Pritam Singh: No, Sir. I prefer a Division.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Will the hon Members in support of the Division, please rise in their places?

More than five hon Members rose.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Clerk, ring the Division bells.

After two minutes –

Mr Deputy Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh, you have asked for a Division, would you like to proceed with the Division?

Mr Pritam Singh: Yes.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Clerk, proceed with the Division. Members are reminded that they have to be seated at their designated seats and should only start to vote when the voting buttons on their armrests start to blink.

Members may now begin to vote.

Members are advised to check that their names are registered according to their vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screen.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim that his vote or her vote has not been displayed, or displayed incorrectly on the screen? Since there is none, I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 74 "Ayes", nine "Noes", and one "Abstention". The "Ayes" have it.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr K Shanmugam].

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 12 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 –

The Chairman: Clause 13. Ms Anthea Ong.

Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, may I take this opportunity to clarify my earlier statement? The proposed amendments were vetted by the Parliament Secretariat on procedure.

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I seek your permission for the debate to range over clauses 13 and 25 as they are similar amendments?

The Chairman: Please proceed.

Ms Anthea Ong: Thank you. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have already, with the permission of Mr Speaker, addressed these amendments during my debate at the Second Reading of the Bill earlier.

Let me just round it up. We welcome Minister's assurances that the amendments put forth will be addressed in subsidiary legislation because these assurances were not demonstrated in the Bill when it was tabled. However, our stance is unchanged and we maintain that these amendments to the primary legislation is necessary to ensure that any future Minister and/or Government would have to first change the primary legislation, that is, tabling it in Parliament, and, therefore, a higher barrier to clear. Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move the amendments* standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

*The amendments, which also stood in the names of Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, read as follows:

In page 20, lines 25 and 26: to leave out "identify the subject statement in sufficient detail.", and insert —

"—

(a) identify the subject statement in sufficient detail;

(b) identify the true facts and their supporting evidence, and/or the evidence demonstrating the subject statement to be false, to the extent practicable;

(c) specify the public interest objects of the Direction; and

(d) provide the reasons why the Direction is commensurate with and shall satisfy the public interest objects so declared.".

Question put, and amendments negatived.

Mr Pritam Singh: Chairman, I would like to record. For the amendments proposed by the Nominated Members of Parliament, the Workers' Party's position is to abstain on them. I can abstain on each of them individually but Chairman can also take note that we will abstain on all the individual amendments. So, whichever way Chairman would prefer, I will proceed.

The Chairman: I think we will take it that you are abstaining on all of them, to save time.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Chairman.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Mr Chairman, I wish for my dissent to be recorded.

Ms Anthea Ong: I do too.

The Chairman: Okay. Members who wish for their dissent to be recorded, please stand up. Ms Ong, you are also dissenting? Okay. Clerk, please record the dissent.

Hon Members Ms Anthea Ong, Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira rose for their dissent to be recorded.

Clauses 14 to 16 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 –

The Chairman: Clause 17. Ms Anthea Ong.

Ms Anthea Ong: Mr Chairman, may I take your permission for the debate to range over clauses 17, 29, 35 and 44 as they are similar amendments?

The Chairman: Please proceed.

Ms Anthea Ong: Mr Chairman, I beg to move the amendment* standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

Again, we welcome the Minister outlining the details of the subsidiary legislation that addresses these amendments in this regard yesterday. However, any future Minister and/or Government could still make changes in the subsidiary legislation to enact rules to unnecessarily delay the appeal process, obstructing appellants' access to swift judicial oversight. With this amendment, any future Minister and/or Government that attempts to delay the appeal process would have to first change the primary legislation. Again, it is a higher barrier to clear.

*The amendment, which also stood in the names of Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, read as follows:

In page 23: after line 31, to insert —

"(10) In giving effect to this provision, the Minister shall do everything reasonable to ensure that appeals to the Minister are adjudicated without delay, that upon appeal to the High Court hearings shall commence as soon as practicable, and that costs to the appellant are minimised.".

Question put, and amendment negatived.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Mr Chairman, we wish for our dissent to be recorded, please.

The Chairman: Okay. Members who wish for their dissent to be recorded, please stand up. Clerk, please record the dissent.

Hon Members Ms Anthea Ong, Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira rose for their dissent to be recorded.

Clauses 18 to 24 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 –

The Chairman: Clause 25. Ms Anthea Ong.

Ms Anthea Ong: Mr Chairman, I beg to move the amendment* standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

*The amendment, which also stood in the names of Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, read as follows:

In page 30, lines 7 and 8: to leave out "identify in sufficient detail the subject material and the subject statement.", and insert —

"—

(a) identify the subject statement in sufficient detail;

(b) identify the true facts and their supporting evidence, and/or the evidence demonstrating the subject statement to be false, to the extent practicable;

(c) specify the public interest objects of the Direction; and

(d) provide the reasons why the Direction is commensurate with and shall satisfy the public interest objects so declared.".

Question put, and amendment negatived.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Mr Chairman, we wish for our dissent to be recorded.

The Chairman: Members who wish for their dissent to be recorded, please stand up. Clerk, please record the dissent.

Hon Members Ms Anthea Ong, Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira rose for their dissent to be recorded.

Clauses 26 to 28 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29 –

The Chairman: Clause 29. Ms Anthea Ong.

Ms Anthea Ong: Mr Chairman, I beg to move the amendment* standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

*The amendment, which also stood in the names of Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, read as follows:

In page 34: after line 9, to insert —

"(11) In giving effect to this provision, the Minister shall do everything reasonable to ensure that appeals to the Minister are adjudicated without delay, that upon appeal to the High Court hearings shall commence as soon as practicable, and that costs to the appellant are minimised.".

Question put, and amendment negatived.

Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Mr Chairman, we wish for our dissent to be recorded.

The Chairman: Members who wish for their dissent to be recorded, please stand up. Clerk, please record the dissenting votes.

Hon Members Ms Anthea Ong, Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira rose for their dissent to be recorded.

Clauses 30 to 34 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 –

The Chairman: Clause 35. Ms Anthea Ong.

Ms Anthea Ong: Mr Chairman, I beg to move the amendment* standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

*The amendment, which also stood in the names of Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, read as follows:

In page 41: after line 22, to insert —

"(9) In giving effect to this provision, the Minister shall do everything reasonable to ensure that appeals to the Minister are adjudicated without delay, that upon appeal to the High Court hearings shall commence as soon as practicable, and that costs to the appellant are minimised.”

Question put, and amendment negatived.

Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Mr Chairman, we wish for our dissent to be recorded, please.

The Chairman: Members who wish for their dissent to be recorded, please stand up. Clerk, please record the dissenting votes.

Hon Members Ms Anthea Ong, Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira rose for their dissent to be recorded.

Clauses 36 to 43 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 –

The Chairman: Clause 44. Ms Anthea Ong.

Ms Anthea Ong: Mr Chairman, I beg to move the amendment* standing in my name as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

*The amendment, which also stood in the names of Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, read as follows:

In page 51: after line 12, to insert —

"(11) In giving effect to this provision, the Minister shall do everything reasonable to ensure that appeals to the Minister are adjudicated without delay, that upon appeal to the High Court hearings shall commence as soon as practicable, and that costs to the appellant are minimised.”

Question put, and amendment negatived.

Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Mr Chairman, we wish for our dissent to be recorded, please.

The Chairman: Members who wish for their dissent to be recorded, please stand up. Clerk, please record the dissenting votes.

Hon Members Ms Anthea Ong, Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira rose for their dissent to be recorded.

Clauses 45 to 62 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause A –

The Chairman: New Clause A. Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Mr Chairman, I beg to introduce a New Clause entitled "Principles of Act".

Brought up, and read the First time.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Mr Chairman, I beg to move that the New Clause* be read a second time.

The "Principles of Act", I referred to them in my Second Reading debate. The purpose is to provide guidance to the proportionate and limited exercise of powers under the Act. I accept the Minister believes that these guarantees are already provided in the existing Bill or will be provided in subsidiary legislation. Nonetheless, I think this debate has shown us that it is not easy for non-lawyers to understand or interpret the appropriate scope of the Act. So, I think it is important to provide a plain language set of the principles in the primary legislation that cannot be changed by a future Government without returning to Parliament.

*New Clause A, which also stood in the names of Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching and Ms Anthea Ong, read as follows:

In page 12: after line 14, to insert —

"Principles of Act

A. In performing any duty or exercising any power under this Act in relation to the communication of online Falsehoods, any Minister and any Competent Authority must have regard to the following principles of this Act:

(a) the ability of a well-informed public to critically evaluate, establish, debate and question facts, opinions, and ideas is integral to a well-functioning democracy;

(b) as facts can be contentious and difficult to establish, and because the advancement of knowledge often depends on contesting apparent facts, the disputation of a fact does not imply that one or more contested facts are falsehoods by that virtue alone;

(c) while an authority may have higher quality data or more accurate means of determining the facts, given the variety of legitimate means by which facts can be established, a statement of fact that differs from a fact established by an authority does not imply a falsehood by that virtue alone;

(d) non-legislative measures are the least restrictive way of addressing online Falsehoods and should be preferred to the exercise of executive powers when feasible;

(e) the executive powers in this Act may be regarded as, from least to most restrictive: A Correction Direction, a Targeted Correction Direction, a General Correction Direction, a Stop Communication Direction, and a Disabling Direction;

(f) regard must be had to whether the public interest for which the duty is being performed or the power is being exercised can be achieved in the way that is the least restrictive on the rights of the public to speak and debate freely;

(g) in all matters relating to the administration or application of this Act, the aim is to target material online falsehoods that are against the public interest, and not opinions, comments, critiques, satire, parody, generalisations or statements of experiences.”.

Question put, and amendment negatived.

The Chairman: Members who wish for their dissent to be recorded, please stand up. Clerk, please record the dissent.

Hon Members Ms Anthea Ong, Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira rose for their dissent to be recorded.

New Clause B –

The Chairman: New Clause B. Ms Anthea Ong.

Ms Anthea Ong: Mr Chairman, I beg to introduce a New Clause entitled "Independent Council to strengthen society against online falsehoods".

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms Anthea Ong: Mr Chairman, I beg to move that the New Clause* be read a second time.

The Council will be empowered to routinely evaluate the actions taken under this Act, make recommendations to the Government and provide accountability to the public through annual reports on the Act. The Council will also oversee and support non-legislative action against online falsehood, including public education. Unlike councils stipulated in other legislation, we are proposing that Members of the Council are to be appointed by a Select Committee of Parliament and not by a Minister, ensuring that the Council stands as a separate and independent body from the Government.

The Minister had shared he agreed with the intent of the independent Council. I believe that councils with such a purpose do not lead to unnecessary bureaucracy because we have numerous precedents to cite in support of this, like the National Council on Problem Gambling.

*New Clause B, which also stood in the names of Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira, read as follows:

In page 67: after line 19, to insert —

“PART 10

INDEPENDENT COUNCIL TO STRENGTHEN SOCIETY AGAINST ONLINE FALSEHOODS

B.—(1) There is hereby established a council to be called the Independent Council Against Online Falsehoods which shall consist of –

(a) a Chairman; and

(b) such other members as the appointing authority may determine;

(c) where the appointing authority shall be a Select Committee of Parliament.

(2) The Constitution and Proceedings of the Council shall be determined by Schedule, provided that —

(a) where the appointment and tenure of office of members is concerned:

(i) no member shall hold an office of profit under the Government;

(ii) no member shall be a Member of Parliament or stand as a candidate for election as a Member of Parliament;

(iii) no appointment of any member shall be revoked without valid cause, where such valid causes shall be limited to inability to perform the functions of the Council, dereliction of duties relating to the Council, or acts that prejudice the independent functioning of the Council;

(iv) the tenure of office of all members shall be at least two years on appointment and shall be automatically extended, in the case of a general election which occurs during the tenure of office of any member, to include a term of at least one year past the date of that general election.

(b) nothing shall be specified or required that prejudices the independent functioning of the Council.

(3) The functions of the Council are —

(a) to evaluate the state and effects of online falsehoods communicated in Singapore, including online falsehoods not subject to Directions;

(b) to evaluate Directions issued with respect to the type of online falsehoods addressed and the public interest causes of action, effects of Directions, appeals processes, and other matters as determined by the Council, provided that —

(i) no Direction shall be reviewed which is sub judice or subject to an ongoing appeal at the point of review;

(ii) Directions shall not be the subject of individual review except where at the discretion of the Council public confidence in the exercise of powers under the Act requires it;

(iii) no review of any Direction shall be admissible as evidence of any wrongdoing or liability on the part of Government.

(c) to evaluate other measures taken by Government under this Act to address online falsehoods;

(d) to make recommendations to the Government on the general exercise of powers under the Act in order to strengthen efficacy and public confidence;

(e) to liaise with the media, technology firms, and other experts to advise on public education, ground-up initiatives, and other measures to strengthen the capacity of Singaporeans to evaluate online information and resist falsehoods;

(f) to liaise with scientific, specialist, and technical experts to advise the Government on examining contested facts of a specialist nature;

(g) to undertake surveys or other arrangements to obtain public feedback on any matter relating to the functions of the Council; and

(h) to perform such functions as the Minister may, by order published in the Gazette, assign, provided such functions do not compromise the independence of the Panel.

(4) The Council shall be furnished with the resources to discharge its functions under this Act, and in particular, shall —

(a) have a Secretariat appointed by the Minister subject to the concurrence of the Chairman;

(b) be entitled to request information on the exercise of powers under this Act from any relevant Ministry, who shall be under a duty to provide that information;

(c) have funds provided to meet any expenses incurred in carrying out its functions, provided that the funds provided during any term of Government shall not be diminished during that term except with the agreement of the Chairman.

(5) The Council shall publish for public viewing in connection with its functions —

(a) an annual report (or more frequently as the case may be) on the activities, findings, and recommendations of the Council; and

(b) a report of any substantive proceedings of the Council; provided that

(c) the content of any report may be minimally redacted if at the discretion of the Council it may weaken efficacy of measures to address online Falsehoods, appear to render judgment on any particular Direction, expose market-sensitive information, or expose information subject to the Official Secrets Act.

(6) No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie personally against any Council member or other person acting under the direction of the Council for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in the execution or purported execution of this Act.”.

Question put, and amendment negatived.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira: Chairman, we wish for our dissent to be recorded.

The Chairman: Members who wish for their dissent to be recorded, please stand up. Clerk, please record the dissent.

Hon Members Ms Anthea Ong, Ms Irene Quay Siew Ching and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira rose for their dissent to be recorded.

The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill considered in Committee, reported without amendment.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." As many as are of the opinion say "Aye".

Hon Members say "Aye".

Mr Deputy Speaker: To the contrary say "No".

Some hon Members say "No".

Mr Deputy Speaker: I think the "Ayes" have it. Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Chairman, I would like to call for a Division, please.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Members who support the Division, please stand.

More than five hon Members rose.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Clerk, ring the Division bells.

After one minute –

Mr Deputy Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Mr Deputy Speaker: Clerk, please proceed with the Division. Members are reminded they are to be seated at their designated seats and should only start to vote when the voting buttons on the armrests start to blink.

Members may now begin to vote.

Members are advised to check that your names are registered according to the vote indication when the voting results are shown on the display screens.

Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my name is not reflected.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Okay. Clerk, please record her vote. May I ask what is your vote?

Miss Cheng Li Hui: "Yes".

Mr Deputy Speaker: Okay. Thank you. Okay, before I proceed to declare the results of the votes, are there any other Members who wish to claim that your vote has not been displayed or displayed incorrectly on the screens? Prof Lim Sun Sun, can I confirm that your vote is "Yes"?

Prof Lim Sun Sun: Yes.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Alright. Okay.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I will now proceed to declare the voting results. There are 72 "Ayes", Nine "Noes" and three "Abstentions". The "Ayes" have it.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.