Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods – Causes, Consequences and Countermeasures

The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in my name on the Order Paper for today for Parliament to appoint a Select Committee to examine and report on deliberate online falsehoods.

*The Motion reads as follows:

“(1) That Parliament appoints a Select Committee to examine and report on:

(a) the phenomenon of using digital technology to deliberately spread falsehoods online;

(b) the motivations and reasons for the spreading of such falsehoods, and the types of individuals and entities, both local and foreign, which engage in such activity;

(c) the consequences that the spread of online falsehoods can have on Singapore society, including to our institutions and democratic processes; and

(d) how Singapore can prevent and combat online falsehoods, including:

(i) the principles that should guide Singapore's response; and

(ii) any specific measures, including legislation, that should be taken.

(2) That the Select Committee shall comprise –

(a) Deputy Speaker Charles Chong as Chairman; and

(b) seven Members from the Government benches, one Member from the Opposition benches, and one Nominated Member, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. ’”

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, the deliberate spread of online falsehoods today is a serious problem around the world. You see the details in the Green Paper that has been filed. It gives a framework for the Government’s reasons for bringing this Motion. Countries across the world have been the subject of organised deliberate disinformation campaigns − conducted both by state actors, targeted at destabilising other countries, and also non-state actors and they spread the falsehoods deliberately to both interfere with the democratic processes within countries and to also destabilise and undermine institutions within a specific country

Most Members, if not all, would have come across these examples reported almost on a daily basis in the media. And the Green Paper sets out in a summary some of the more serious ones.

Why are we concerned? Because we are highly susceptible. Let me share three reasons.

First, of course, the very high Internet penetration in Singapore. More than 91% of Singaporean households have Internet access. So, it is easy to attack and spread falsehoods in Singapore. We have seen it happening.

Second, our diversity − as a multi-racial, multi-religious society. That makes it easy to exploit the fault-lines through falsehoods. You get completely fabricated stories spreading. For example, in June of last year, that cat and dog meat were mixed into a marinade of satay in a Geylang bazaar. That is a relatively minor example, though it can make a lot of people very angry.

But you have more serious examples from other countries. You see some of them in the Green Paper. People can and have targeted specific sections of populations. They can target specific sections of our population − using falsehoods based on race, religion.

Third, our international position, both in this region and internationally, makes us an attractive target. We are a key strategic node, a key player in ASEAN. We are a trade hub, commercial hub, financial hub for this entire region. What we say on regional issues and international issues carries weight. So, if we can be influenced and swayed, then foreign interests can be advanced through us.

We have been the subject of foreign interference in the past. The Green Paper again sets those out. Those are the obvious known examples. For example, a Malaysian politician financing a newspaper in Singapore which campaigns against National Service – you cannot get a more obvious example.

Of course, technology has added a completely new dimension. Minister Yaacob will touch on the points relating to technology and how it has completely changed the landscape.

What can this do?

Wide spreading of falsehoods can drown out the facts, can cause people to be disillusioned, can be manipulated to create rifts and damage social cohesion. So, the people who shout loudest and shout falsehoods are those who will get hurt.

Falsehoods, because they tend to be focused on playing to people's feelings and getting them to be angry by putting forward points which are completely fabricated.

A very senior officer in Sweden is reported by BBC to have said – and this was reported last week – disinformation as a tool, as a campaign, in the context of Sweden has had effect. It affects Sweden's "fundamental values: freedom of speech, democracy and individual rights".

Ultimately, if left unchecked, such deliberate spread of online falsehoods can undermine trust in the country, in the institutions, in democracy and affect social cohesion.

So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am asking Parliament to appoint a Select Committee, to examine and report on the causes and consequences of deliberate online falsehoods; and the countermeasures that will be required to prevent and combat them in Singapore.

The Government has been studying this problem for a while. The Select Committee can study the issue in depth with a smaller group of Members of Parliament (MPs), and then present a report to Parliament.

It will be open to the Select Committee to decide whether to hold public hearings, whether to hear from witnesses. I think it will be useful to do so. The process will allow for a formal dialogue with selected groups.

The composition of the Select Committee, we suggest, the default position is for 10 members − nine Government MPs and one MP from the Opposition bench − but we propose replacing one of the Government MPs with a Nominated MP, to have more diversity. So, we will have − eight Government MPs, one opposition MP and one NMP.

The Terms of Reference have been broadly framed, intentionally. So, the Select Committee will have to consider relevant views and options.

Sir, I ask that a Select Committee be appointed to examine this problem thoroughly, consult as widely as possible, and come up with countermeasures on how we can protect Singapore against this threat. I beg to move.

Question proposed.

2.46 pm

The Minister for Communications and Information (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the Motion.

Sir, let me state from the outset that the issue goes beyond tackling online falsehoods per se. More fundamentally, it is about maintaining our sovereignty, as well as the multi-racial nature of our society, by ensuring that those who wish to do us harm by peddling falsehoods online do not succeed.

As we have seen in other countries, deliberate campaigns to proliferate falsehoods online have caused panic and confusion, worsened societal fault-lines and eroded trust in public institutions. If unchecked, they may result in grave consequences for the country's social and political discourse. Let us not forget that Singapore has fallen victim to foreign interference through falsehood and misinformation before.

Mr Shanmugam just spoke about the Singapore Herald's misinformation and campaign in the early-1970s. In the same period, the Eastern Sun was exposed by the Government for receiving HKD$8 million from a communist intelligence agency from Hong Kong. The funds were provided on the condition that they would not post the People's Republic of China on major issues and publish news items of the communists' choice. The newspaper eventually folded in 1971. So, we were fortunate to nip this in the bud early enough, so that this campaign did not sink our young nation back in the day. But today, such orchestrated campaigns can wreck even more harm.

In the Internet age, falsehoods can go viral in seconds. Digital content can be easily manipulated to make it more provocative and stir emotions more easily. Anyone can publish or share falsehoods online, even from halfway around the world. And the net result is that online falsehoods can destabilise societies far more easily than ever before.

Take, for example, the example of the now defunct, The Real Singaporean or TRS website, which my Ministry shut down in May 2015. TRS published doctored articles which sensational headlines as clickbait to increase traffic to its website so as to inflate its readership and earn more advertising dollars.

In February 2015, TRS published a false article on a Filipino family complaining about the noise from a Thaipusam procession involving Indian Singaporeans. Such an incident never happened. The article was deliberately fabricated and falsely attributed the incident to innocent parties to fuel anti-foreigner sentiments. It went viral and created tensions between our local Indian community and the Filipinos living in Singapore.

Fortunately, we acted swiftly to prevent TRS from doing further harm. The two editors of the TRS were convicted in court for sedition and the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) cancelled the Class Licence of the TRS website.

Sir, recent events worldwide also show that foreign countries can also use online falsehoods to undermine confidence and trust in national institutions and the electoral process. It was estimated that 126 million Americans were exposed to 80,000 pieces of Russian-linked content targeted to influence the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential Elections.

In the United Kingdom (UK), foreign Twitter accounts posted four tweets in the month leading up to the UK Referendum, such as how millions of Turkish people will move to the UK, if the UK voted to remain in the European Union (EU). Such falsehoods aimed to influence voters and the outcomes of elections. These outcomes in some cases changed the course of the countries, like what Brexit appears to have done.

But let me clarify that we are not against technology. Technology is agnostic. It is the people and actors abusing technology to spread online falsehoods that are the problem. And indeed, technology has improved our lives in many ways, and while technology can be used to divide societies, so too can it be used to bring people together, such as by connecting communities across the world, or mobilising volunteers during crises. That said, as technology continues to push the frontiers of reality, it will be easier to create false information and damage societies.

So, for instance, in 2016, Professors at Stanford University and the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg demonstrated how technologies can record a video of people tin real-time, effectively manipulating their expressions to reflect the message the perpetrators want to convey.

Adobe launched a new product in 2016 called "Photoshop for Audio", which allows users to feed about 10 to 20 minutes of someone's voice into an application. The user then type any words he or she wants to say, which will be expressed in the same exact voice. The resultant voice sounds virtually indistinguishable from the real and does not sound computer-generated at all. This can be used to impersonate anyone, even Heads of States.

Singapore is especially vulnerable to this for several reasons. First, we are a small and multi-racial society that can be easily overwhelmed by a larger adversary, taking advantage of our societal fault-lines. Second, Singapore has one of the highest smartphone penetration rates in the world at almost 150%. People can easily access the Internet and social media on their smartphones anytime and anywhere, and hence, are more susceptible to the spread of online falsehoods. And third, while we have a population that is technology-savvy, it is an entirely different matter, whether we have the ability discern truth from falsehood.

A Government poll in May 2017 showed that one in four Singaporeans frequently come across online news that was not fully accurate. Two in three of them were unable to recognise some or all of the falsities. And one in four admitted to sharing news that they later found was fake.

Sir, efforts to tackle this problem are already on the way. Organisations, such as the Media Literary Council and Government agencies like the NLB, have developed programmes and resources to raise public standards of media literacy.

While public education remains our first line of defence, it is not enough. Mechanisms need to be put in place to respond swiftly to these falsehoods. So, we need an inclusive approach to address these issues holistically, involving not only the public sector, but the private and people sectors too. And we need a broader national conversation about this issue so everyone has a shared understanding of the threat and a sense of ownership about the solution.

Hence, Sir, I fully support this Motion to convene a Select Committee on online falsehood. This will allow us to consult widely and tap on the collective wisdom of the community and stakeholders.

Sir, we look forward to hearing its deliberations and suggestions, so that we can keep Singapore a sovereign, cohesive and united society together.

2.53 pm

Ms Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to support the Motion. We have heard from the Ministers why deliberate online falsehoods have become a global problem. I would like to argue that Singapore as an international, multi-ethnic, small and open country faces the issue of deliberate online falsehoods, even more acutely than others.

We have one of the highest levels of Internet penetration in the world. The Ministers have both mentioned it. Seventy-seven percent of Singaporeans are active social media users, placing us third globally, in terms of social media penetration.

These are actually strengths. We have an active, well-read and inquisitive population. We have ready access to information, across borders, across time, across languages. We are not barred from accessing information. We can read and write all sorts of things online. But these very strengths can also be used against us, when we face the onslaught of online falsehoods.

We are a small, densely populated nation. We are also multi-racial and multi-religious. Everything that the world faces, we can face here, in a quicker time, with a nearer striking distance. Given how small we are, falsehoods can spread online in seconds, reaching a large segment of population and causing great inconvenience to everyone.

Let me give you an example. When false news of the roof collapse at Waterway Terraces I, which is in my ward, broke, I was on the phone in seconds calling up the Town Council, calling up my grassroots leaders to rush there as soon as they can while I drive there from another part of town. The false news was taken down in half an hour but many things happened within that half hour. The Singapore Police Force (SPF) and Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) despatched vehicles and manpower. Residents congregated at the scene. Other residents texted to say that they were rushing home. And even after the news was taken down, to play safe, I still mobilised the Town Council to go around check for cracks on walls. So, this might be someone’s idea of a joke, but it was not a very efficient use of time and resources.

Because of how small Singapore is and how connected we are, we can mobilise quickly to respond to situations. In the example that I just provided, everyone was rushing to the scene to provide help. But what if our speed and proximity instead ended up harming us?

Recently, in Wichita Kansas, an innocent man was shot dead by the police after pranksters called the police to say that he had shot one of his family members and was holding the rest of them hostage. The police SWAT team responded quickly and in force, went down to his doorstep and shot him dead at his doorstep. All because of false information.

It is also not altogether unimaginable if online falsehoods on a financial institution were put up, leading to a bank run or if someone wanted to agitate foreign workers in Singapore and put up something to say that Singaporeans bullied them.

Repeated instances of deliberate online falsehoods can also have costs as it can lead to a "cry wolf syndrome", whereby when a real emergency strikes, no one reacts because everybody is accustomed to thinking it is false news.

In recent months, several countries, Germany, France, the UK and Ireland have moved quickly to protect themselves by enacting laws to limit fake news and punish purveyors and websites who either disseminate or fail to take down fake news. Foreign agents and organisations have been identified as seeding fake news to attack these large countries. We should not think that we are immune to this. Rivalry between states have existed since time immemorial.

Singapore though small, is a key player in ASEAN and a key node for trade, finance and communications. Foreign powers to advance their interests in the region may seek to manipulate Singapore from within, through the seeding of deliberate online falsehoods, injecting ideas, narrow casting to groups split along racial, religious, or along ideological lines. Such insidious actions can polarise our society, erode the middle ground and destabilise us.

How then do we tackle this? Do we take a big stick and censor all information online? That would be akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Our openness and access to information is one of our key strengths and has played a key role in creating a thriving and international city out of Singapore.

Do we legislate laws to tackle online falsehoods? It sounds reasonable to penalise those who choose to act irresponsibly and deliberately spread online falsehoods and to create safeguards to ensure that that does not happen. But where do we draw the lines? How do we distinguish those who knowingly create or spread online falsehood from those who are just expressing their opinions? How do we ensure that legislating laws to tackle online falsehood will not end up impeding our right to free speech?

Or is part of the solution also to encourage greater media literacy in our citizens, so that they can discern truth from falsehood and working with technology companies to use algorithms to distil facts from fiction?

I worry about relying solely on the efforts of companies to self-regulate or putting the onus of responsibility on citizens to discern truth from falsehood because if that alone were enough, we would not see online falsehoods proliferating and affecting so many countries worldwide.

That said, I believe the Motion proposed by the Minister to have a Select Committee examine and report on the problems posed by online falsehood and various ways to tackle them is a worthwhile step forward. The problems posed by online falsehoods with the wide ramifications across all sections of society, rapid speed of transmission and seriousness of disruption to security, financial stability and religious harmony – are all serious enough to warrant convening a Select Committee. I am supportive of the broadly drafted terms of reference – they reflect the fact that the Select Committee will be considering all options, fairly and objectively.

I would, however, like to ask the Minister how the Select Committee will be organised, how views will be sought and how the public can participate in the process. I think it is important that there is:

(a) a thorough discussion of the problems posed by deliberate online falsehoods,

(b) that the process is inclusive so that representations can be received from all sectors and stakeholders and we benefit from their opinions and breadth of knowledge;

(c) that there is ample time for questions to be asked and clarifications provided; and

(d) that all options are considered and the recommendations are something that Singaporeans can read for themselves and consider for themselves.

This should be a study that the Government, Singaporeans and companies embark on together to find solutions to combat deliberate online falsehoods. Many countries worldwide are already doing so. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Through public voting, Lianhe Zaobao readers selected the word "terror" to describe the year 2017. This is not accidental, as there were many terror attacks all over the world last year. Besides terror attacks, there is another weapon which can also cause fear and anxiety in society and destroy social cohesion. This weapon is more insidious and harmful in the long term, but it is often overlooked by people. That is false news.

False news can spread in seconds to a large population and pose a major hidden danger for the society.

I have personally witnessed how false news can cause damage in my constituency, Punggol. There was news that the roof of a Housing and Development Board (HDB) block had collapsed. Although this news was deleted after half an hour, public agencies had already despatched vehicles and manpower to the site within that half an hour. False news has caused the wastage of public resources which could have been used on things that need them more.

We can imagine what would happen if the false news is not about a collapsed roof but about credit issue of a bank. If the depositors or investors see the false news and a run-on-the-bank happens, the bank will then close down, resulting in real capital loss. Deliberate false news is harmful for the economy and people's lives.

A new word has emerged these days called "post-truth politics" to describe a situation whereby the real truth does not matter anymore and that the situation is driven by people's emotions. The Oxford Dictionary has even listed the word as a key word for 2016, which shows how widespread this phenomenon has become internationally.

False news is the key instrument to incite people's feelings and create post-truth politics. False news can target a certain community or race in society, instil racial and religious ideology, and breed extremist ideas. This kind of slow and subtle influence can lead to a social divide and affect social stability.

Singapore, although small, is a key player in ASEAN and a key node for trade, finance and communications. To advance their interests in the region, foreign powers may seek to manipulate Singapore through these means.

Internationally, there are already people using the Internet to interfere with other countries' politics. They tend to possess powerful resources and advanced Internet technology. They can fabricate false news to infuriate people in another country, cause domestic turmoil and may even influence regime change.

Singapore must stay vigilant so that these people will not succeed. For insidious false news, we cannot sit around to be fooled and harmed. We need to build our own defence system.

Many countries in the world face the same difficult issue and still there are no good solutions. We cannot rely solely on the efforts of companies to self-regulate, because there may be people who profit from fabricating false news. Neither can we put the onus on citizens to separate truth from falsehood. This is irresponsible.

False news can simply touch and go. To prevent false news from harming the society, we should consider legislation. However, we should also be mindful, when legislating laws, that we do not take away citizens' right to free speech. Freedom of speech must be protected by the law.

Hence, I support the Motion to set up a Select Committee to examine ways to tackle online falsehoods. I hope the Committee can conduct comprehensive public consultations to allow people to participate in the discussions and allow all sectors to give their views. At the same time, we need ample time for questions to be asked and discussed.

Lastly, I hope that we can find a solution that will benefit Singapore and Singaporeans, a workable solution which is achieved through discussions among all Singaporeans.

3.06 pm

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the deliberate spreading of falsehoods is not a novel phenomenon. For as long as human societies existed, there would always be incidence of rumours, untruths being spread in various media. Such falsehoods affect people, relationships, the way people see things, and ultimately, impacts on the society. Human societies have managed to cope and deal with such incidents and its consequences.

However, with the advent of digital technology, the spread of falsehoods and its impact on communities have reached unprecedented levels. The spread of deliberate online falsehood is, therefore, of particular concern.

Firstly, the manner in which we receive and share information has changed significantly. There are now many more information systems and platforms which translates to more means and ways by which falsehoods can be spread. With the proliferation via social media, falsehoods spread much faster. We now have the concept of "going viral", a problem which we never had to deal with before. There is now instant communication – Twitter, Facebook Messenger, Instagram, Telegram – and with a click of a button, an individual could share information to many others almost immediately. On Facebook, an individual could share a post to 5,000 people. On a single WhatsApp group, you can have up to 256 members. Imagine the extent of the reach in numerous WhatsApp groups.

Secondly, as individuals, we all receive and share information with the same groups of people. It is natural for people who think alike to come together and share views. The Internet has made it easier for us to talk amongst ourselves with people of like-minded views. In such context, we end up confirming each other’s pre-existing views and reinforce our own biases. Often in such groups, there is no other source of information coming into our circle. We therefore form echo chambers and this amplifies the impact of any falsehoods spread within the group.

Thirdly, there are people taking advantage of the new means of human communication and the human psyche to spread falsehoods. The identities of those creating or proliferating falsehoods online are hidden behind the screen of anonymity, such that they are emboldened to spread the falsehoods. There have been and will continue to be unsavoury people who would use the online platforms to propagate falsehoods for their own desirable ends and to pursue their own agendas.

In addition, it is observed that in many places, the mainstream media no longer holds the same degree of trust it had with the people. The people have a preference to refer to sources, other than the mainstream media. The mainstream media now operates in a different environment where it can no longer operate as an effective check and balance on the proliferation of online falsehoods, enabled by technology and social media.

An indication of the severity of the spread of online falsehoods was given at the World Economic Forum in 2014, where the rapid spread of misinformation online was considered the 10th top trend of global significance.

I believe we can all appreciate the significant adverse impact online falsehoods can have on communities. Just look at the buzz that was caused when many people received the message that NTUC FairPrice was giving out gift cards. A friend said that she saw a lady insisting for a gift card at one of the outlets. The implications can be even more serious.

For example, when terror attacks occurred in Paris in November 2015, a video went viral claiming that London Muslims were celebrating the attacks. In reality, it was a video of a celebration of a victory by Pakistan in a cricket match. The hoax fed into the anger against Muslims in the aftermath of the Paris attacks.

As a Muslim minority in Singapore, I cringe every time I hear news of terror attacks. I always worry about the distrust that could develop against the Muslims in Singapore. It is one of my greatest fears that an online falsehood could trigger anger against the Muslim community here. There could be disastrous implications if this happens in Singapore. The impact to Singapore may be irreversible. The problem of the spread of online falsehoods is a very real problem and merits immediate attention.

So, we know the problem, but what do we do about it? There are numerous ways to address the spread of online falsehoods but the current measures appear inadequate.

Currently, there are statutes like the Telecommunications Act and the Broadcasting Act, which may apply but there are gaps. For instance, under the Telecommunications Act, it is an offence to transmit a message knowing that it is false. However, in practice, this provision has been ineffective in properly addressing the spread of online falsehoods. The circulation of falsehoods is hard to circumvent, given how quickly they go viral today. One person could possibly be held accountable under the statute for sending the message containing the falsehood but its virulent spread thereafter, cannot be adequately dealt with using existing provisions in law.

The technology companies are also making effort to take steps to stop the spread of falsehoods by flagging information to consumers or by taking down the posts which breach community standards. In December 2016, Facebook began showing a "disputed" warning next to articles that third-party checking websites said were fake news. However, researchers subsequently highlighted to Facebook that this method is ineffective as it was actually entrenching deeply held beliefs. Therefore, Facebook will no longer display these red warning icons but instead display links to related articles next to the disputed news stories.

There are also some ground-up efforts of fact-checking that are emerging. In October 2017, the National University of Singapore (NUS), the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), Google and the Media Literacy Council, supported by The Straits Times, organised a hackathon to solve the problem of online falsehoods. This is an encouraging effort, but I believe it is still too early to tell how successful this will be in the fight against online falsehoods.

The reality is that existing measures and efforts are not able to curb the spread of online falsehoods. The challenge is multi-faceted and requires more than just one solution. The effort in fighting online falsehoods therefore has to be a concerted effort.

I am very glad therefore that this Motion has been put forth for a Select Committee to examine the various aspects of online falsehoods and propose some measures. I note the terms of reference of the Select Committee set out in the Motion and agree with the same.

I would comment on the reference to possible legislative measures. This would indeed be a natural and obvious response. I trust though, that the Government will not only be considering legislative options. Although, legislation would regulate conduct in relation to the spread of online falsehoods, I believe there are other efforts that could be put in place including public education. I would therefore ask if the Government could consider legislation as part of a wider, more multi-pronged approach.

Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to say a few words in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The development of digital technology in this era has changed the way we communicate and has an effect on the spread of information. One of the consequences is the spread of online falsehoods on an unprecedented scale. All types of falsehoods can spread very quickly and its impact on society is quite significant.

One example is a video that became viral, that purportedly show Muslims in London celebrating the Paris terrorist attack in November 2015. In reality, the video was a recording of a group of people celebrating Pakistan’s victory in a cricket match. This hoax has further stoked anger and hatred towards Muslims after the Paris incident.

Just imagine if a similar situation happens in Singapore. Race relations in Singapore may become fractured and the lives of our multi-racial and multi-religious society will be affected.

Therefore, it is important that we act quickly to prevent the spread of online falsehoods. The current efforts are inadequate to resolve this problem. We must think of more effective solutions. The problem of online falsehoods cannot be resolved by a single group. The Government, tech companies, media, society – they must all play their part. We must work as one country in order to achieve an effective outcome.

Hence, I welcome the proposal to form a Select Committee to study the spread of online falsehoods and propose measures to overcome them.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Motion.

3.15 pm

Mr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): Thank you, Deputy Speaker, Sir. I am very glad that the Government has put up this Motion to call for setting up of a Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods.

I applaud the Government for taking this approach because this is a very important issue, affecting every Singaporean, young and old, and hence, a call for extensive and in-depth discussion and deliberation is most important.

We all know that fake news is not anything new. It has been around since olden times and even now, in present days. It is being used by both state and non-state players to profit, manipulate, divide and to conquer.

In 2017, Minister Shanmugam, in replying Members of the House, identified three situations of such things. And I would quote him:

"Genuine feedback – it could be in error where the person could have made a mistake but genuine, well-intentioned feedback or complaints because there is a difference of viewpoints, allegations based on an honest belief in certain facts; that is one category. That is understandable. Generally, there should be no consequences for that. The second category where the complaint is justified, feedback is justified and we must take action. The third category is what the Member is focused on, which is false, deliberate, malicious allegations. We are not talking about errors, we are talking about deliberate falsehoods, malice."

And so, I would look forward to the Select Committee to look especially into this third category that the Minister has mentioned and examine deeply the consequences of these falsehoods.

In the UK, there was a call for submission on the understanding of fake news by the British parliament. And, on the website, you can see that parliament actually wants the British public to define what is fake news. The second thing which I thought is really important is, I quote, "Where does biased but legitimate commentary shade into propaganda and lies?"

I think this second point is very important for the Select Committee to look at. Because this Government has been advocating for more active citizenry, hoping that Singaporeans would be more involved in discourse and discussions. We have seen more Singaporeans speaking up and, of course, the social media has provided that platform for them to express their views. We do not want a heavy handed approach that will be root out constructive, though at times, disagreeable voices.

Hence, I hope that the Select Committee will consider, if there are to be new legislation against deliberate online falsehoods, that it needs to balance the interest of protecting national security and preserving public order with the interests of:

(a) enabling individuals to have meaningful discussions on issues of concern, including Government policies, without fear of having action taken against them, and

(b) enabling the media, both professional and citizen journalists, to report on such issues of concern.

Where the media is concerned, for example, should there be a responsible journalism defence? Thus, if a media outlet acts responsibly before publishing a story, for example, by conducting inquiries into whether an incident did in fact happen, and by approaching the authorities for a comment, should it be free from liability even if it later turns out that the story contains some inaccuracies? Also, provided that the media has made such inquiries, if it is merely reporting what someone else says without endorsing what has been said, should it be free from liability?

However, I would urge the Select Committee to look at what our present law provisions have as a starting point. Such laws include the Broadcasting (Class Licence) Notification or section 45 of the Telecommunications Act, and specific laws such as the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act, the Protection from Harassment Act, the Sedition Act, and the tort of defamation.

The Green Paper mentioned – and just now Minister Yaacob also mentioned –the case of the TRS incident. The relevant authorities have moved swiftly and under the existing laws, dealt with that issue. And, in fact, based on what I have observed, very quickly, that piece of falsehood was quashed and the public understood and knew and did not circulate it anymore. I think this demonstrates that our existing laws and provision have been effective. Based on this, we should start our discussion on whether we need new legislation.

I am not saying that these Acts are perfect and do not require review. Indeed, some of these laws give very broad powers to the authorities, and it may be that they should themselves be reviewed but to ensure that the interests of individuals that I have mentioned previously are properly recognised.

But one of the concerns about online platforms is that news would spread so quickly. So, when there is a falsehood being put up, how do we respond as swiftly? And to act swiftly and to respond swiftly, we just cannot depend only on law enforcers. No matter how tough the law is, any person with intention to sabotage with fake news or falsehood would still do it, for profit or for malice.

Hence, the responsibility of citizens becomes important. To stop the spreading of news, it needs the citizens to be vigilant, to take up responsibility but not to vigilante. Hence, in this age of social media, the people's responsibility then, must include the ability to discern and make up their mind what news are dubious and what are falsehoods.

Media literacy is important and should be inculcated in all levels of society: in schools, in community set-ups, in workplaces and even at home. Any good literacy programme must be taught critically so that those who are learning it will learn how to think critically. So, I hope the Select Committee will look at how to further our media literacy outreach, and not just going to schools, but to workplaces, community and grassroots sites.

But I also that this is a wonderful opportunity for everyone to start thinking about these issues, and to ride on the work of the Select Committee that will gain public attention, that the Government should consider, at the same time, put out sustainable engagement programmes on media literacy at all of these sites that I have just mentioned.

As the world become more complex, no one person or institution, can claim to hold truth, to have all information. Hence, everyone contribute to providing information to help to discover truths and to fact-check. Fake news preys on the confirmation biasness of its readers. And so, as it travels very quickly, unsuspecting public would be taken in very quickly. So, to help public learn to discern truths, facts and opinions from lies and falsehoods, it is important that there is a high level of transparency of information flowing especially, from authority. The earlier when information is being shared, without prejudicing justice or national security concerns that would help people to know and be able to clear the air.

I also hope that the Select Committee would also look at multiple independent fact-checking bodies that would allow the public to fact-check, cross reference so that they can make decisions themselves.

I would also like to ask the Select Committee, when calling out for public engagement, again, to allow more time for consultation. A recent incident was the draft of the Film Act where we had only nine days to make that submission and we had to appeal for another two more weeks for that submission. And I hope that this will not happen. But at the same time, I wonder would the Select Committee consider, because this is an issue of such a broad concern, that there may be disagreement within the Select Committee in terms of what to do, that there should be provisions for minority reports in the Select Committee report.

And finally, Rebecca Solnit, in her book "Hope in the Dark" talks about how ordinary people that appear in Superhero movies produced by Hollywood are always portrayed to be passive, clueless, cowardly and helpless, because without the clueless public, Superheroes cannot perform their tasks. But in real life, we realise that people are not that clueless. And I think, in the fighting of online falsehoods, we need all people to be responsible – the people, the Government, the media, the civil society, because we really cannot wait for Superheroes in those crisis moments.

3.25 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, thank you for letting me join in on this debate. I have three points – all three points support the intention to refer the issue of deliberate online falsehoods to a Select Committee.

First, even as we try to tackle the problem of deliberate online falsehoods upstream, to be truly inoculated to the adverse impacts of falsehoods, people need discernment to differentiate between truth and falsehoods. This is because of the ubiquitous nature of online falsehoods. I refer to paragraph 14(b) of the Green Paper to put things into perspective: 36,746 Twitter accounts generated approximately 1.4 million automated, election-related tweets. Additionally, the repudiation of an article as false is often announced hours after the viral impact and seldom reaches all the audiences. False news may also continue to circulate making the article that repudiated it seem outdated.

According to a study done by the Communications and New Media Department at NUS and the Institute of Policy Studies, younger Singaporeans have an optimism bias. That survey showed that Singaporeans who are more optimistically biased tend to "evaluate the news they receive on social media as less credible" and that they "tend to search for more information". This scepticism that leads people to dig deeper is encouraging.

Nevertheless, the value of repetition and perceived corroboration may pose difficulty with automated accounts and multiple websites putting up the same unreliable information.

Furthermore, even as people need to disbelieve falsehood, they need to be able to discern what is true, what is reliable. An article entitled "US kids suss out the truth about fake news" by Washington Post and later picked up by The Straits Times had this to say, I quote, "While they once feared teenagers would fall for everything they read online, now teachers are increasingly concerned that their students will grow up not believing anything they read – or worse, believing the difference between what is real and what is fake is a matter of choice." That would be dangerous. What is important is discernment and not just disbelief. Therefore, empowering people to discern between truth and lies is of paramount importance. Only then can we increase our resistance to the insidiousness of falsehood.

This is not an easy task. Though the phenomenon of "fake news" is not a new 21st century phenomenon but more like an upgraded or multiplied upgraded version of rumours, the rise of technology has exacerbated the issue. In an age of increasing technology sophistication, artificial intelligence can fabricate a scenery that had not existed. It is possible to make a video showing Barack Obama saying things he did not actually say – all without compromising the perceived authenticity of the video, a point alluded to by Minister Yaacob in his speech.

Even without sophisticated technology, a simple deliberate miscaptioning and hence, repurposing of an old picture or video, can paint a very misleading picture. For example, in Italy, a government Minister's appearance at a funeral was falsely captioned to make it appear as if she was mourning a mafia boss. Using an apparently trustworthy news article but adding unverified and misleading facts can turn groups of people against each other. When that happens, the corroboration of articles seems to enhance the perceived credibility of the article rather than expose its falsehood.

Other ways to increase the audience reach and strengthen perceived veracity by enhancing popularity are through automated bots and phantom accounts. Social media has also become a platform for individuals and larger entities to transcend traditional territorial boundaries to irresponsibly wield the sword of the keyboard to manipulate politics, destabilise a country, increase polarisation or to simply get rich. The Internet has enabled a cloak of anonymity to increase the lack of accountability and enable an easy masquerade of a credible news site through subtle changes to a website domain.

While it is not easy, tackling deliberate online falsehoods is important for our future as a nation, for our future as a democracy, for our future as "one united people".

Allow me, Sir, to move on to my second point: falsehoods can divide us but we need to stand united − united as one multiracial Singapore. We need to safeguard our social cohesion.

Unity is important, and unity can be threatened by false allegations. A Straits Times article on India’s fight against fake news reported that false images had been circulated on Twitter purporting to show Rohingyas persecuting Hindus in the Rakhine province, where the Muslim Rohingyas have been fleeing alleged persecution. In that instance, the purported victims were repainted as the oppressors, exploiting the tension in Myanmar towards the Rohingyas. These examples show how false allegations can target and wrongfully exacerbate society’s fault lines and threaten unity.

Falsehoods should not be perpetuated. There needs to be space to clarify misconceptions, address prejudices and reduce misinformation. Truth is the antidote to lies, and lies need to be addressed in order to dispel suspicions based on falsehoods.

This brings me to my third point. People who tell the truth do not need to and should not be afraid of the actions to be taken. I repeat: people who tell the truth do not need to and should not be afraid of the actions that will be taken.

There is a difference, of course, between falsehoods and truths that we do not like to hear. The Green Paper is entitled "Deliberate Online Falsehoods". It is not entitled "prohibiting hard truths".

It is important for a democracy to work that ideas be exchanged. However, concocting a collage out of unrelated data, then squeezing an untenable conclusion out of it and then attempting to pass off that conclusion as truth − now, that is dangerous and should be avoided. Why?

Because it misleads people. Simply put, there is no interest in being misinformed. This is especially so when important decisions have to be made.

Therefore, while we should not hamper constructive discussion and the expression of viewpoints, we need to make sure that decisions are based on the foundation of truth and not the shifting sands of falsehood. An example of how falsehoods may hamper democracy can be seen in the Brexit situation where there was a misleading poll with shaky extrapolation that caused people to think that millions of Turkish people would move to the UK if it voted to remain in the European Union. What would happen if such important decisions were made based on these false premises?

Another example is how, during the recent elections in the US and UK, supporters of a particular candidate or party had been encouraged to vote via invalid methods or on an invalid day. If voters acted on this, the electoral process by which democracy is effected would not function as it was meant to be.

Today, Sir, the motion is to refer the question of which principles should apply to the regulation of deliberate online falsehoods. Such a reference is needed. If falsehoods continue to influence the minds of people across sensitive issues, such as our multi-racial identity and our national security, then our unity will be at stake.

So, we need to act − and we need to act now.

3.35 pm

Mr Ganesh Rajaram (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of this Motion by the Ministry of Law to appoint a Select Committee to examine and report on deliberate online falsehoods.

As stated in the Green paper and reinforced by the Ministers today, online falsehoods, or '"fake news", as it is more commonly known, can have very serious and debilitating consequences for societies. We have seen how polarising the effects can be in countries like the United States (US) and France in recent years. We have also had our own share of fake news occurrences in Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on Saturday, 23 September last year, I received a WhatsApp message from a retired civil servant who had received it from a senior civil servant, and it contained a link to a breaking news story that alleged that the Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan had collapsed at a UN Summit in New York. Within minutes, the story went viral. I reached out quickly to a trusted contact in MCI who immediately assured me that the story was, indeed, fake. However, what astonished me was how quickly this piece of "fake news" spread and the alarm it caused. I can only imagine the distress caused to those who know the Minister.

This incident, and many others like it, tell us that online falsehoods or fake news is a phenomenon that is not going to go away. Indeed, it is going to be more prevalent as the world becomes digital and reliant on social media and online platforms for news.

So, how do we combat this phenomenon, knowing that it is something that we cannot control? I would like to suggest three possible approaches that perhaps could be further explored by the Committee.

Firstly, speed and magnitude of response. One of the areas that the Government and the community have to work on is creating multiple credible platforms to push out accurate information, corrections and rebuttals. The Singapore Government has 16 Ministries and 61 Statutory Boards − and I am not even including Government-linked companies here. Each Ministry and Statutory Board has its own website and social media channels. In confronting fake news that is viral and in danger of triggering a nationwide panic, there must be an immediate response across all channels to ensure that the accurate information drowns out the fake news.

Mainstream news media outlets can help lead this charge by enhancing their credibility. At a Digital Media Conference in November last year, The Straits Times Editor and Editor-in-Chief of the Singapore Press Holdings' English, Malay and Tamil Media Group, Mr Warren Fernandez, said, "Societies have to find a way to make sure that good content gets out there because if you don’t do anything about it, bad content will drive out good content".

I agree completely with this point, and feel strongly that newsrooms of today can do a lot more. One could make the argument that most Singaporeans get their news in real time from platforms like Facebook because even the mainstream news media today get their news and videos from Facebook. But I believe that this can change with more robust and credible news gathering and reporting.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in situations of critical importance, beyond Government platforms and mainstream news media, we should also consider immediately marshalling social media influencers here in Singapore to help us get the word out as fast as possible. While we all know that our very own Prime Minister Lee is one of the biggest social media influencers in Singapore because of the sheer number of followers across his social media channels, there are others who also have a wider reach. For us to combat fake news with immediacy and magnitude, it is critical that we engage as many credible influencers as possible.

The other approach which the Committee could focus on is education. I was pleased to read this week that tertiary institutions in Singapore are taking up the fight against fake news. Three polytechnics and universities in Singapore have recently introduced and modified courses to include emphasis on fake news. Students will be taught to do credibility checks on sources, cross-referencing and the use of authoritative sources.

While that is a great start, I feel that the education has to start at a much earlier stage − at preschool. If you go to any restaurant or hawker centre in Singapore today, toddlers watching content on iPads and mobile phones are the norm. Most kids learn to use iPads and mobile phones even before they learn how to speak. Sadly, when my son was growing up, these devices were not available. In this digital age, parents and teachers need to teach kids about the difference between what is "fake" and what is "true". It is akin to teaching our children not to talk to strangers. To be able to tell the difference between what is fake and what is true has to be ingrained in kids from young. This is not something that can be solved by legislation. This needs a whole-of-Singapore approach – everyone from parents to grandparents to teachers need to get involved.

Lastly, there is a need for the small group of influencers out there who take pride in offering alternative views and commentary on political and social happenings in Singapore to be more factual, accurate and constructive. Their opinions may not necessarily be fake, but their views and opinions can be very damaging to our social and cultural fabric. To me, opinion pieces that can undermine sensitive issues or negotiations can be even more damaging than fake news from foreign sources. These influencers are Singaporeans, many of whom are very familiar with the out-of-bounds (OB) markers as they may be experts or former media professionals. Many of these influencers may contribute commentaries to foreign online publications that are written to deliberately elicit a strong reaction. The community should be wary of these influencers, and learn to seek other credible sources of information before making a judgement.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in closing, I would like to commend the Ministry of Law for this initiative to convene a Select Committee. Fake news is a very serious phenomenon, and, if left unchecked, will have disastrous consequences for our social fabric.

3.42 pm

Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, "Democracy Dies in Darkness". This is an insightful slogan of Washington Post, a well-regarded US newspaper. The Washington Post recognises that a democracy cannot survive and thrive without an informed public discourse informed by facts, truth and transparency.

Indeed, in the past few years, leading democracies have been hacked. The long list includes the US, UK, France, Germany, Sweden and Italy. These nations have been hacked by foreign powers and special interest groups, who systematically inject fake news into the openness and the connectedness of many democracies, so as to further their foreign agenda or narrow interests and, in certain instances, they have succeeded.

Why do such concerted efforts frequently succeed, even in mature democracies with well-informed electorates? We are beginning to benefit from new research on fake news. Dartmouth College recently analysed the real and fake news consumption of thousands of adults in the lead up to the 2016 US election.

The research shows that most lies and false rumours online go nowhere. However, the key researcher, Dr Brendan, notes that social media companies have algorithms that "dangerously effective at identifying memes that are well-adapted to surviving, and these also tend to be rumours and conspiracy theories that are hardest to correct". In short, few pieces of fake news survive, but those that do, go viral.

We should not be surprised by the ingenuity of these algorithms, because social media companies have an overriding financial interest to keep us entertained and connected for as many hours a day as possible, by delivering one dopamine dose, one newsfeed at a time.

Fake news also thrives because of our psychological make-up. Psychologists have noted that for the human mind to critically examine whether an article is true or false, a person must first mentally articulate them, temporarily accepting the news as possibly true. But even if our brain subsequently rule what we read as fake, our mind has already made a subconscious note of that, and this lingers in our minds longer than we think it does.

Psychologists also believe that repetition matters. Merely seeing a newsfeed headlines many times, even if they are later debunked as fake news, make it more credible than it should. In short, even if we recognise news as fake, fake news can influence us subtly.

People might speculate as to the reasons for the Select Committee. In fact, it has been suggested that one of the reasons for convening this Select Committee is the petition process which was initiated by some activists in relation to Parliament’s consideration and adoption of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill in August 2016. But such speculation does not change the issue at hand.

In view of the danger that certain state and non-state actors pose, by weaponising disinformation into fake news, I support the creation of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods.

Beyond the formation of the Selection Committee, I have two other suggestions.

One, while the Committee’s work is critical, we should tackle the issue upstream by strengthening our people’s understanding of how our society works.

Any country with an under-informed electorate has fertile grounds for fake news to thrive. Therefore, we must find more effective ways to keep our people well-informed about the fundamentals of how our society works.

This includes how our society manages our multi-cultural and multi-religious fault-lines; how the Government spends its money, and how we manage our reserves; how our political and electoral process functions; how we encourage transparency in public debate among Singaporeans, but also saying no to foreign influence on our public opinion.

A good way to start is to teach them in schools. Today, we already teach critical thinking in schools, and we do have social studies and national education. But more can and must be done. So, I agree with Mr Kok Heng Leun's view on strengthening media literacy.

Two, we should commission detailed and prolonged studies to understand how Singaporeans gather their views, and how social media shape their views.

When I meet young citizens, I sometimes ask them how do they build their world-view and what is their source of news. More and more, I am hearing that they are increasingly relying on news from social media or WhatsApp-sharing.

A clear understanding on the news consumption patterns will be necessary to help us calibrate policies, so that we can create a healthy balance between healthy discourse and necessary intervention.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me now conclude. Public discourse is the means for our society to reflect collectively, reflect on what values matter, reflect on whether our policies have lived up to our ideals, and reflect on whether we have pushed a logical idea to its illogical extreme.

For the longest time, our mainstream media has served as an accurate mirror for our society to reflect upon. With the rise of social media and the decline of mainstream media, many Singaporeans are no longer even looking at the same mirror.

At the same time, vested or financial interests distort their social media newsfeeds more and more each day. In the decades ahead, we have a lot of major decisions to make. And we need to collectively decide on our way forward on the basis of facts, and not rumours and, certainly, not fake news. We must do everything in our power to combat fake news to ensure that Singapore’s public deliberations continue to be enlightened because democracy dies in darkness. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand in full support of the Motion.

3.49 pm

Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion for the formation of the Select Committee to study deliberate spread and impact of online falsehoods. With the rise in technology and digitisation, the online space has been widening and is certainly one area of concern for every right-minded people and organisations, including the Labour Movement, given the multinational, multi-racial, multi-religious composition of the people and members that we have.

Sir, as I support the appointment of the Select Committee, I would like to put forth the following recommendations.

I support the appointment of a Select Committee to study the issue of deliberate online falsehoods, that is, fake news, and make appropriate and well-balanced recommendations as to how, as a nation, we should respond and how to cultivate the values of accountability and responsibility, especially when posting materials on social media. It is imperative for the Committee to study this issue in depth and solicit responses from the public and various interest groups as a ground-up inclusive move, as compared to introducing legislation alone without consultation. There is a fine line between satires, deliberate online falsehood or differing yet genuine opinions that may not resonate with the State's views. I propose that the Select Committee comprise different parties in the community and professionals from the digital media sector with relevant knowledge and experience.

Accountability on online platforms. Online platforms could create tools to help stem the spread of falsehoods. Technical steps could be taken to remove or limit access to propaganda outlets using the conditions of use of most Internet service providers and "report/block content" buttons. The recent online survey scam that NTUC FairPrice was rewarding customers with a $400 gift card voucher in celebration of its 45th anniversary is a clear example to demonstrate the spread of falsehoods online. I suggest that an online platform be created for public to complain about factual inaccuracies and to check the validity of the news.

Currently, the Ministry of Health (MOH) has an online platform to feedback on specific concerns or complaints with the healthcare service providers or the Ministry. There could be an additional category to include feedback on online falsehoods relating to public health safety issues for MOH to investigate and clarify with members of the public. This is one such example I could give and other Ministries could also have a similar kind of arrangement. This would mobilise the public energies to police lies and distortions with a web-based open system listing journalists, publications, news channels and other websites.

On public engagement. Given the diverse demographic of our Republic, it is important to embrace diverse viewpoints. Singapore Conversations was a good way to engage Singaporeans openly on policies and the rationale behind them. The Government could continue to sharpen their strategic communication efforts and media activities to be able to rebut false stories and to be believed, and it has to be responsive and timed.

Education and mind set change. This is a very important topic that many Members have also spoken about. Ultimately, the focus could be on educating our citizens on media and digital information literacy. I would like to applaud the efforts of tertiary institutions, such as Singapore Polytechnic, Ngee Ann Polytechnic, the Nanyang Technological University (NTU), the Singapore Management University (SMU) that have introduced lessons to help students differentiate fact from fiction, where students are taught to do credibility checks on sources, cross-referencing and use of authoritative sources. Secondary schools could also include media and digital information literacy in their curriculum, where students learn to pick on cues to uncover misinformation, question misleading sources and resist the temptation of believing just simply. Eventually, we hope to cultivate a generation with a healthy scepticism on the online information.

Lastly, on legislation. We should monitor the situation and consider various effective means of curbing and preventing deliberate on-line falsehood. Legislation and tighter controls must also be considered to combat the “virus” of falsehood. As for foreign influence, we need to have some gate-keeping mechanism to know the source of the news, who is the sponsor, what is the intent of the action, as what the Minister for Law has mentioned earlier. We should learn from the experiences of other countries and study what actions have been taken to overcome those challenges.

France, Germany and the US are also similarly working to overcome the problem of fake news. The proposed law in France requires websites to make public the identities of those who sponsor content. It also provides for emergency procedures introduced during elections, providing judges the ultimate power to remove content, close websites that publish false information or fake news. Similarly, in Germany, legislation allows for fake news or illegal content in social network to be removed within 24 hours.

In concluding, my belief is that the Select Committee appointment is a step in the right direction and I support this move.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.55 pm until 4.15 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.15 pm.

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

Debate resumed.

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the speakers before me who have given their views on Deliberate Online Falsehoods.

One way to think about today's debate is whether we should adopt a paternalistic or a liberal stance towards false information per se – whether online or off. I think our discussion today should take bearing from the existing principles that already inform this House's views on falsehoods and truths – namely, the relatively uncontroversial principles that we should, first, reduce falsehoods as much as we can and, second, promote the truth as vigorously as we can.

But as with so much in policy making, this is easier said than done. Deliberate Online Falsehoods cut across these two broad spectrums: (a) completely false information, photos or videos purposefully created and spread to confuse or misinform; (b) information, photos or videos manipulated to deceive, or old photographs shared as new.

More than half of British users of social media surveyed have admitted that they fail to check the original source of online material before sharing or "liking" it. What about Singaporeans?

A June 2017 survey by the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) found that around 25% of respondents shared information that they later discovered to be false. Around two-thirds could not recognise falsehoods when they first saw it and only half were confident of their ability to recognise falsehoods. Most of us admit that we cannot distinguish the truth from falsehoods.

Mr Deputy Speaker, today I want to make a simple argument – that we now need more processes to safeguard the two principles that have underwritten our governance philosophy all these years and which I have spoken about earlier: reducing falsehoods and promoting truth. New processes are needed because the status quo is based on two assumptions which we now know to be questionable.

First, the assumption of infinite, or even adequate, time and capacity to process information. There might be one camp choosing to oppose this motion who may think "here we go again – mollycoddling us by restricting information for our sakes". Freedom of information has a nice ring to it, and restricting freedom always requires justification.

"Don't treat us like little children", they say, unable to distinguish between truths and falsehoods. And, indeed, the argument from freedom goes further – even if we do make mistakes, it is our mistake to make.

So, the Government should not – and should not want to – protect us from our mistakes. Surely, it is a fundamental tenet of our democratic system that people should be allowed to make their own decisions, and if those decisions are mistaken, it is a matter of accepting the outcome of a democratic process. That is true.

But it is also true that people have a right to expect that the political leaders that they have put in place carry a duty – to ensure that their decision making environment – that is, the people's decision-making environment – is not populated by intentional falsehoods. That their leaders not be blind to the dangers that such falsehoods can have on freedom of opinions, religions, races and genders. Also, it should be noted that we are restricting fraudulent information and not restricting information per se.

In fact, I see countering falsehoods as a way to safeguard freedom of speech – by ensuring the conditions are in place for there to be meaningful and free debate. Falsehoods mislead, crowd out truths and prevent constructive debate and discourse.

Just throwing all the "data" we have into a pot and then leaving people to distinguish between good and bad information makes the assumption that people have both the time and the capacity to do this. I do not mean "capacity" in the strict sense of expertise or education – I mean it in the loose sense of "inclination" – or whether we "can be bothered." Indeed, most people cannot be bothered.

Declaring my interest as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of NTUC FairPrice, FairPrice, too, has had its fair share of Online Falsehoods. So, according to information online, FairPrice, for example, sells "halal pork" and also "plastic rice".

In 2007, FairPrice filed a police report after we found a picture of "halal pork", allegedly sold by stores, on the Internet. If the first person who saw this checked with us and deleted it, it would have died there. Instead, the news was carried in both the mainstream media as well as online news media, and caused a stir in the community, and rightly so. It was so widespread that Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) had to carry out physical checks. That was in 2007. It went viral again in 2011 and again in 2014, and FairPrice had to respond publicly that this was a 2007 hoax that had resurfaced. Even today, 10 years later, I still get messages asking me about this. So, for the last time, I hope, this is a deliberate online falsehood! Indeed, a lie can travel half way around the world before the truth gets out of bed.

Just last year, FairPrice also had to file a police report over viral claims that its house brand jasmine fragrant rice is made of plastic. Last year, too, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) had to step in and come out to debunk a Facebook video that alleged a coffee shop in Ang Mo Kio was selling "man-made eggs from China".

False information will be the Pope's theme for his annual World Communications Day in 2018. I think, if the Pope deems falsehoods harmful enough to cause "polarisation" of public opinion, all the more should Singapore urgently formulate recommendations to curb the peddling of misinformation, the chaos and the additional costs it brings.

We know of instances of brands' reputations tarnished by appearing on fake news websites and, unwittingly, funding their activities. Back in March last year, Havas Group UK, a media agency, decided to stop all its ad spending on Google and YouTube after ads for its clients appeared next to "questionable or unsafe content" online.

Consequences go beyond dollars and cents into the very destiny of men. In the UK, voters for remain or exit voted on the basis of information later found to be false. Countries are hoping to sway online citizens to be one way or the other, vote one way or the other, pressure their governments one way or the other, using – not evidence or facts, but by casting fear, seeding doubt, and pressing emotional buttons.

There are many of us who do not have the knowledge nor the time to sieve through falsehoods; this is exacerbated by the mode of delivery of such news. How easy it is to like, comment or share information these days. We owe a duty of care to the public, by presenting them with straight facts, we owe it to each other to be vigilant of misinformation. We need to be vigilant and alert to decipher masses of information thrown at them. We know this in the same way we know it is bad to eat too much sugar, that exercise is good and sloth bad. We know and yet we do not do what we should; instead, quite often, we do what we should not.

So, we need the vigilance of laws, regulations and due process. Being vigilant does not mean being undemocratic. We need to educate the community, let them know if the news comes from a certified source, and equip them to decide whether to read or share it. At the same time, we owe it to them, to ourselves to ensure that the environment under which such decision making takes place is as uncluttered with falsehoods as possible.

Having regulations and due process also reduces our hiding behind the excuse of "honest mistakes". We make claims, and then, when proven false, we apologise and say, "we are all human". We did not intend to mislead, to misrepresent, our memories are faulty, and blah, blah, blah. Intentions aside, we all know that the consequences matter. Having a review of how we regard such falsehoods will raise the bar for due care in public discourse, and also, hopefully, reduce the instances of being reckless with the truth. We are all imperfect beings – and, hence, need to show that we have taken due care when we engage in public debates.

If Singapore had four seasons, I would say winter is coming. Those who follow Game of Thrones, "winter is coming". Given that the assumption of infinite time and capacity is false, our first principle must be to reduce falsehoods as much as we can, to be vigilant and guard against the purveyors of such harmful things. In short:

False assumption 1 – people have infinite time and capacity to make decisions. So, Principle 1 is – reduce falsehoods as much as we can.

But there is a deeper objection, Mr Deputy Speaker, about regulation of information. It argues that a Government does not have a right to decide beforehand what is true and what is false. That people have a right to all the facts, and if one set of fact is proved wrong, only then will they decide to change their decisions.

This is the argument from the "marketplace of ideas" – that people will change their minds when the facts change. As Cicero, the great Roman orator said, "Does not, as fire dropped upon water is immediately extinguished and cooled, so, does not, I say, a false accusation, when brought in contact with a most pure and holy life, instantly fall and become extinguished?" Cicero, I think, did not have experience with "halal pork"!

The answer to his question, whether falsehoods wither and die when exposed to the light of truth is, of course, no! Lies thrive and contest against the truth, even when the "truth" is as evident as where a man was born, or the amount of money spent on healthcare. In the post-truth world, the role of facts, unfortunately, has been shown to have less force then supposed.

Instead of changing their minds when presented with a different set of facts, people may instead choose to disregard these facts or find ways to find new facts which support their pre-existing ideas. This confirmation bias is well-tested and should be taken into consideration when we make the marketplace argument. In short:

False assumption 2 – people change their minds when presented with new facts, which leads me to Principle 2 – We have a duty to ensure, to the extent possible, that the marketplace of public discourse is not crowded out by falsehoods.

To do this, we need to actively invest in any efforts to discern, filter, contain, disrupt or even punish deliberate Online Falsehoods. Perhaps, the solutions may be both legislative and relying on market forces. Stronger fact-checking/ self-regulation by social media sites and technology companies. Popular search engines and social media platforms, such as Google and Facebook, have been struggling for years to fight false news, despite their best intentions.

For instance, in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting last October, despite Facebook and Google promising to inhibit such circulation, falsehoods, such as the identity and the affiliation of the shooter, still ran rampant.

There is much room for improvement, especially when one reason is that the algorithm in these systems often bring attention to posts that get their readers' interests – exactly what falsehood is designed to do. If the post garnered 10,000 likes and shares, then, surely, it must be real, right? Wrong! And this is where numbers provide false safety. There is very little wisdom in crowds, or, at least, very little that we ought to take at face value when it comes to important decisions.

Israel, for example, has proposed legislation requiring social networks to take reasonable measures to monitor their platforms for incitement to terrorism and to remove such incitement, or be liable to pay fines.

Stronger fact-checking, self-regulation by society, by individuals. It is understandable that many people do not have the time, resources or energy to recognise and safeguard against falsehoods, before believing or sharing with others. Yet, self-policing in this manner is very much dependent on the ability of individuals to spot such news, to begin with.

Another challenge is the need for individuals to recognise that they need to be socially responsible: Think before sharing. This is a moral argument. The limitations to public education now are in its outreach and time. It will be difficult to reach certain segments of the community, such as the elderly. Also, public education of this nature takes a long time before results bear fruit, and we do need some immediate solutions, given the gravity of the situation now.

Intervention through legislation. In the UK, the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee is conducting an inquiry into "fake news". Facebook and Twitter may face sanctions if they fail to hand over information to the Committee to assist in a Parliamentary investigation into Russian interference in the EU referendum.

Some examples of what legislation can do include making falsehood publication a criminal offence, mandating the removal of such news from platforms and websites, and/or ensuring that readers have access to facts. This achieves the crucial objective of deterrence, which non-regulatory measures mentioned above cannot achieve.

The extent of Government involvement requires deep discussion. Heavy-handed legislation may backfire on the Government acting as judge, jury and executioner of what constitutes credible information. We may end up freezing free speech online. Legislation, if overly relied on, may also weaken the ability of society to educate themselves and discern what is real or not for themselves.

It is clear that the challenges brought by deliberate online falsehoods are many and complex.

You will notice, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have merely challenged two assumptions and reinforced two principles in the wake of these false assumptions. I have stressed the role of process in ensuring that the environment for our public discourse remains clean and unencumbered.

As to the actual processes themselves – what they should be, how much is needed – I think these are the issues that the Select Committee is best placed to explore, as it allows the committee to draw representations from contributors and stakeholders of all sectors.

Having a Select Committee will allow for a thorough discussion of the problems posed by this issue, such as responsibilities of social media and tech companies’ platforms, how to educate the public to discern news, the duty that websites have towards using deliberate falsehoods to attract more hits and to drive revenue.

In particular, I think such a committee would also be able to articulate more clearly and in greater detail the principles that underline our governance model in terms of regulating information.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I had earlier spoken about the need to balance our freedoms with duties but perhaps I ought to make it clearer than that. It is not just a balance, but a difference between means and ends. We do not pursue freedom for its own end. We do not, if I may put it bluntly, have a “philosophy of freedoms”.

As Mr S Rajaratnam, our then Minister for Foreign Affairs, said in a speech to foreign correspondents, “We see freedom of the press not as the end, but as means to an all-embracing end – the integrity and independence of our country – its security, its prosperity, the eradication of anything that would sow seeds of social, racial and religious conflicts which is the rule rather than the exception in the world today.”

Sir, he was speaking in 1986. Yes, more than 30 years ago – and the world has come full circle. So, I think we ought to hear his words to the end. He said, “Singapore has far more vulnerabilities than most national states because it has none of the essential prerequisites for a viable, stable and prosperous state. It has nevertheless functioned fairly adequately for 27 years only on the basis of two intangibles – ideas and the human characters shaped by these ideas.”

Ideas as shaped by human character, not ideas as tossed willy nilly into a pot, undiscerned, half-formed, half-baked.

Let us all recognise the need to work out for ourselves in Singapore what is the correct approach towards preventing and combating deliberate online falsehoods.

A Select Committee with the broad terms of reference as proposed in this Motion is the best way of working these out. Sir, I support the Motion.

4.34 pm

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member): Sir, I used to believe that if most of my friends are speaking about something, it is likely, more than likely to be true. If you apply this presumption to the Internet, it is basically that if something goes viral, that news must have veracity. I have changed my presumptions.

The old presumption that if people are all talking about something or sharing some information by the Internet that is going to be true is now the reverse presumption – it is likely something you have to look at very carefully. Weaponised in this way, deliberate online falsehoods or misinformation can sow societal discord, as has been observed in the Green Paper by the Ministers and in various jurisdictions. Fake news also risks, importantly, devaluing and delegitimising the voices of expertise and the concept of objective data – which undermines society’s ability to engage in a rational discourse based upon shared facts. As an academic, there is an importance of objective data that is extremely important. In the course of this speech, I would like to point this House to what is going on in the universities as far as fake news is concerned.

I support the Motion of a Select Committee, Sir, to address this problem, as well as the Ministries' recognition of the Green Paper that this problem requires a multi-stakeholder response. Not just from the Government, not just from a whole-of-Government, but it is has to be a whole-of-Singapore approach.

The Select Committee should in my view, Sir, should consider four points, as I would set out in this speech. First, how do we define, what is or what is not fake news? Two, how do we utilise the Government's existing toolbox of soft measures as well as hard laws to combat fake news? Three, how do we equip users of the Internet, most of Singaporeans, to be the first line of defence against online falsehoods? And finally, how could we involve major Internet platforms or ICT companies in our efforts to combat this problem?

Looking at the definition, as the first point, it is important to clarify, and for the Select Committee to look into this point, as to what the term ‘"fake news" or deliberate online falsehoods really mean and to frame the problem we are seeking to tackle.

That phrase fake news for a variety of reasons and for a variety of people is a loaded term capable of being co-opted by different constituents across the world for different purposes.

I note that three professors from NTU have directed their minds to this problem of what is fake news in an article they published in August. They undertook an examination of 34 scholarly articles and looked at a duration between 2003 and 2017 in order to map the different conceptions of fake news. They have gone on to say that fake news has two elements. The first, obviously, would be whether there or not is veracity, or facticity in their view; and secondly, the intention behind the news, the degree to which the author of fake news intends to deceive. The most recent understandings of fake news or online falsehoods focus on pieces of news that are low in veracity and high in the intention to mislead. This would be the most dangerous elements of fake news for online falsehoods. When looking at this definition, it is important also to see what it would exclude.

So, as an example, fictitious news stories with a vague plausibility but which are aimed at humour should be excluded if they are deliberately satirical and that they caveat that that is their purpose. It is different.

If there is innocent, inadvertent inaccuracies or mistakes, as some have spoken about earlier, that should be excluded. And finally, impassioned opinion or commentary that is based on facts, even if people would disagree with these facts, that should be excluded.

Ultimately, it is important for the Select Committee to give us a parameter of what is fake news that we would be looking at.

Secondly, looking at the regulatory tool box that is currently available for Government, our Government agencies indeed hold significant power and sometimes could impose major sanctions if they choose to do so in relation to data authenticity, privacy, security and they must always be subject to certain constraints in the public interest.

The Select Committee should outline and recommend how a Smart Nation in the 21st century should responsibly enforce existing norms. There is a considerable range in this tool box, which regulators have. It ranges from inspection, support, advice and it can be backed by criminal, civil and reputational sanctions.

Pre-emptive measures, which is what the Select Committee would be thinking about, should be the main focus of legal solutions that we are putting together, as false information and fake news can inflict lasting damage long after it has been disseminated, even if this news is subsequently disproved. Where damage or harm is caused, appropriate remedies are currently available, as some Members have spoken about in the Defamation Act, the Sedition Act, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and various steep fines that the IMDA can impose.

Beyond what currently exists, the Select Committee should be thinking about what is necessary to be part of the arsenal that is currently not there but that should be there because it is necessary to be there.

Third, how do we equipping Internet users, regular Singaporeans to be that first line of defence?

According to a research paper by IT security company Trend Micro in May last year, Trend Micro said this "In a post-truth era, news is easy to manufacture but challenging to verify, it’s essentially up to the users to better discern the veracity of the stories they read and prevent fake news from further proliferating".

I would therefore agree with the Members who have spoken before me to talk about the importance of discerning truth from fake news. It is far more difficult than you would think. As a very simple example, those of us who follow football can understand that if you have a WhatsApp chat group, there is information on your sports teams, on the players that you support and what you think should be changed. Should the managers be doing something different, should a new player be acquired and very often fake news is actually propagated on these WhatsApp chat groups.

Two points come up. What happens because of this? People are upset, but how far is that damage? So, I would not look at that particular example as something that we should come up with a very strong enforcement measure against. How much of this is fake news and what is the damage of that fake news, is also something we should look at.

There is a need to appreciate the difference in the way people of different ages, social backgrounds and genders use and respond to fake news. Some groups, Sir, are more vulnerable than others. Enhancing digital literacy amongst vulnerable segments of society should also be part of the solution, namely the elderly and the youth who are given false information may benefit from the truth.

Outreach to the elderly could be done through community ambassadors and role models who vet these WhatsApp messages that are sent that could alarm them. Online deliberate falsehoods, Sir, in my opinion are a poison. The same networks that false news has benefited from could also be applied as an antidote to this poison.

A network, Sir, of fact-checkers, as many of us have spoken about, could be set up. Fact-checkers, who are perhaps journalists, university students, scholars to look into information before it is widely disseminated or to constantly correct misinformation as it happens.

Campaigns should be launched to raise awareness on the scourge of misinformation and to equip these fact-checkers with the tools needed to combat falsehoods. Media outlets should consider including critical coverage of disinformation just to explain that this is not the case and to set the record straight.

These networks can be state-driven, such as the local Government website "Factually", which is set up in the UK, which is a fact-checking website set up by the British parliament as well as another website in the US set up for the same purpose. Perhaps we could look at having a repository of information that is truthful when fake news is actually propagated on a wide scale.

Finally, Sir, we should look to involve major Internet platforms and ICT providers. Major Internet platforms should support the research and development of appropriate technological solutions to disinformation and propaganda which users may apply on a voluntary basis. They should cooperate with initiatives that offer fact-checking services to users and review their advertising models to ensure that they do not adversely impact diversity of opinions that users can hold. It is important not to put the entire burden of policing on these platforms on the people, on the users who are using them.

As one example, I look to a colleague at SMU, Prof Warren Chik, who has come out to say and written in the Law Gazette that it may be appropriate not always to have new legislation. So, yes, have some soft laws, have guidelines, have best practices but should we go straight into legislation?

Prof Chik also says that it would be important to clarify with the relevant Internet intermediaries hosting or providing access to information to come under the ambit of existing regulations overseen by the IMDA. He said that making it clear that the regime covers news aggregators, social media platforms that provide newsfeeds and other similar content hosts or sources of news will have the effect of ensuring compliance with combating deliberate online falsehoods and concomitant amendments to the regulations to include specific conditions for operation.

His question, I guess, would be: do we really need a new piece of legislation?

I think the Select Committee should look into this question very carefully. What are the benefits of legislation on this particular point? And if there is going to be legislation, will there be aspects of that legislation which are not just hardcoding new crimes but is giving support to vulnerable and the youth to raise awareness against fake news?

Finally, Sir, it is important to start with more transparency between the Internet platforms and the public, because we do not even understand often, how they are moderating content, and how their algorithms are bring used, or showing up on people's newsfeeds. The question, therefore, for the Select Committee is: is technological design currently being harnessed to both promote more credible content or present content in a way that fosters consumer scepticism and critical analysis? If not, something needs to change.

Sir, Mr Seah, before me, said compellingly that perhaps, we are approaching "winter". And this "winter", I am not talking about seasons, but of course, "winter" from the Game of Thrones; that "winter is coming". But I think what we should do is to say, "Well, if there is winter is coming, how do we insulate ourselves, and get the thickest coats and the best protection from this winter?" Because usage of the Internet is not going to stop, it is only going to increase.

4.48 pm

Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak on this important Motion, and I applaud the effort to push this Motion in this House. While there are many aspects of this discussion, I would like to focus on two important considerations.

Firstly, I need to underscore that constructive public debate or the exercise of freedom of speech must be founded on truth, not falsehoods. Those who advocate strongly for freedom of speech are quick to argue that the "market" should be left to "correct" misinformation and disinformation. They point out that a marketplace of ideas and thoughts will certainly eventually lead to the truth emerging.

This, while true in the past, may not necessarily be the case in this digital era, where falsehoods are propagated at such speeds and volumes which makes it difficult for the common man to discern between fact and fiction. In this digital era, algorithms and social media platforms can also be manipulated by motivated parties – local and foreign, private and state-payers.

Measures need to be taken to ensure that while free speech is exercised, facts will prevail. Free speech must be founded on facts, and not on falsehoods, especially those that are designed to undermine society.

We should not take this lightly. The dangers of how freedom of speech can be abused to cause significant harm to society, can be seen from the experiences in the UK and Australia. In the UK, online falsehoods were used to distort sentiment in relation to government policies and to breed xenophobia.

In 2016, online falsehoods were spread about immigration in the lead-up to the "Brexit" referendum, which fuelled support for "Brexit" by claiming that the UK will see an influx of 12 million Turks if it remained in the EU. False information was also used to stir up racial tensions in the UK to smear Muslims as a group, and to turn non-Muslims against Muslims.

In the face of numerous occurrences of online falsehoods in the UK, the UK government has launched a parliamentary inquiry into fake news. Their experiences have shown them that if left unchecked, the spread of falsehoods has a serious detrimental impact on society. In Australia, online falsehoods were used to stir up racial tensions to smear Muslims as a group and to stir up xenophobic feelings.

In 2015, companies that get products halal certified were targets of a campaign that claimed that halal certification funds terrorism. Conducted largely through the social media and online networks, Australian anti-Islamic groups demanded companies that carry halal certification labels to drop them. This was part of what were known as rallies to "reclaim Australia". There was never any evidence to support the allegation that money from halal certification funded terrorist groups.

Just like the UK, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has undertaken a formal inquiry into major digital platforms and their impact on media, journalism and advertising, with the impact of falsehoods as part of this inquiry. The Australian process is somewhat similar to Singapore’s proposed Select Committee process, in that it is formally convened to study a problem and has powers to obtain evidence and hold hearings.

The second consideration is that falsehoods have the ability to radicalise individuals with extremist sentiments. Terrorist groups have long recognised the need to use online media effectively, in order to radicalise masses and achieve their sinister aims. In an undated letter to Taliban leader Mullah Omar, quoted in 2014, Al-Qaeda’s then leader Osama bin Laden himself observed that "90 percent of the preparation for war is effective use of the media".

Al-Qaeda was long advocating ghazwa ma’lumatiyya, or information operations, and harb electroniyya which is electronic warfare.

Bin Laden’s successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri, shared this same view. He referred to "jihad of the bayan" which is the message of declaration, and considered this more important than "jihad of the spear" – he praised the "knights of the media jihad", and the "clandestine mujahideen" who were conducting it. Terrorist organisations use Twitter to put out fake news stories. There have been many instances of mainstream media mistaking terrorist-originated tweets as legitimate sources of breaking news.

An example of a terrorist organisation that has been using online falsehoods to push its own agenda is the Islamic State (ISIS). In 2017, it claimed that Mosul’s famed al-Nuri mosque was blown up by a US-led coalition airstrike, when in fact, ISIS had destroyed the mosque themselves, using explosives. Their goal as jihadists was to blame the West and the Americans. The Iraq military and the US military released counter-footage, trying to show the truth of the matter, but objective truth has little meaning as the followers of ISIS cannot be swayed by evidence. So, even if you put the counter-truth, it is hard to sway the public and hard to counter the perceptions the mistruths have already shaped.

So, we need to be aware of the consequences when our online space is hijacked or influenced by players with certain motivations or agenda. In our multi-religious and multi-ethnic Singapore, which has enjoyed decades of stability and harmony, such falsehoods should have no place as someone with the intention to stir up emotions and they can do it easily, using religion.

What measures do we need the Government to look into? And these are some suggestions, I hope, the Select Committee can consider. Some countries, such as Germany, have laws to take down unlawful content and systemic breaches that can result in fines of €50 million. The EU, UK and France are considering similar take-down laws. New Zealand takes a different approach under the Harmful Digital Communications Act that allows the Court to order a right to reply or to correct false statements concerning individuals.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the process of appointing the Select Committee, given the sensitivities of the topic and the pervasive use of the online platform by many Singaporeans. Given our small size and highly connected population, we are at risk of foreign influence and intervention.

The Select Committee is therefore a good platform to get views from many Singaporeans and other stakeholders to hear their views, challenges and for us to learn the best way to take this forward for the greater good of Singapore and fellow citizens.

However, the Government must also assure Singaporeans that this is not an effort to silence critics and that the citizens must not lose that freedom to critic, feedback and put points of views across, as long as they are based on truths and not deliberately pushing falsehoods. One of the key priorities, I feel, of the Select Committee is to gain consensus among Singaporeans on how we define online falsehoods, and perhaps it may be time to refine and update our OB markers for the future.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion. Please allow me to continue my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: The move to initiate a Parliamentary process in order to study and obtain feedback on the issue of falsehoods that are deliberately spread online is timely.

This is because we have long faced the issue of having all kinds of news and information coming from multiple sources, including from overseas. What is worrying is that some of these news or information do not state the full picture, or is done out of context. Its proliferation is certainly something dangerous.

Another issue pertains to information or news that is spread with a specific agenda. For instance, during this new year, an ISIS video was spread that showed militants supposedly from Singapore urging ISIS militants from around the world to step up efforts to harm their enemies.

MUIS and leaders of Malay bodies in Singapore immediately condemned the act of spreading of the video.

I believe that this will not be the last time that such videos and information will be spread. It will take a continuous effort to prevent the spread of online falsehoods, in addition to efforts to educate and warn our community about the dangers of spreading such news and information.

For instance, terrorist groups have always recognised the need to harness online media effectively in order to propagate their radical beliefs, in addition to recruiting new members to achieve their agenda.

Let me give some examples. In an undated letter to Taliban leader Mullah Omar that was reported in 2014, the Al-Qaeda leader at that time, Osama bin Laden himself observed that “90% of preparations for war involve the use of media”.

Al-Qaeda have long encouraged what they call ghazwa ma’lumatiyya (or information operations), and harb electroniyya (or electronic warfare).

Terrorist groups also use Twitter to spread online falsehoods. In fact, several mainsetream media outlets use information from Twitter as a legitimate source of news that is used in news updates.

One example pertains to a terrorist organisation that uses online media to spread false information in order to promote their agenda. A year ago, ISIS claimed that the Al-Nuri In Singapore’s context, as a small multicultural, was destroyed in an airstrike by an allied force led by the US. However, it was ISIS themselves who destroyed the mosque.

Therefore, we must always be wary of the consequence and impact when our online platforms are exploited or influenced by certain groups with their own agenda or motives.

In Singapore’s context, as a small multicultural, multi-racial and multi-religious nation, we cannot afford to fall victim to such influences or threats, no matter how small. This is especially so in matters related to religion and race, which are sensitive.

Some of the sensitive issues being spread, that can heighten emotions and divide our society, are beyond our control because it comes from external sources. Certain groups will take the opportunity to spread Islamophobia, and this will surely have an impact in terms of our Muslim community’s relationship with non-Muslims and how they view our Muslim community.

Our experience in Singapore, from time to time, is that we are worried whether certain information that is spread and proliferate in social media is incomplete or inaccurate. Some of these news and information can cause anger or discontent.

For example, there was an allegation that halal pork was sold at NTUC FairPrice supermarkets. A lot of time and resources were needed to correct such information and give assurance to the public,

With technological advancement, information, especially videos and photos, can be created or modified to spread rumours and inaccurate information, and this can spread quickly.

Hence, what are the measures that we would like the Government to study? Some countries like Germany have introduced legislation to close down platforms that display content that break the law, and such offences can carry fines up to €50 million.

The EU, UK and France are considering similar legislation. New Zealand is taking an approach under its laws that allows its Courts to order a right of reply to correct any false information about an individual.

Clearly, the management of online falsehoods is a serious issue. We should focus on how Singapore can contain it. At the same time, it is hoped that any regulations or laws will not hinder the immense benefits of online platforms and social media technologies that have contributed a lot in terms of spreading information and communications.

In order to achieve solutions that can benefit everyone, and to protect us from online falsehood, we must support the Select Committee process and recognise the Government’s efforts to take a consultative approach to resolve this sensitive issue.

In this regard, I hope that the Malay/Muslim community can also contribute and play a role, whether they are community and religious leaders, online entrepreneurs or the man-in-the-street, and that all of us will give suggestions and ideas about ways to counter online falsehoods.

5.01 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Deputy Speaker, Sir, Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In 1969, there were rumours of Malays attacking Chinese in Malaysia. This led to serious race riots which also affected Singapore. The riots in Singapore lasted for seven whole days resulting in four people dead and 80 injured. People of my age or older would have remembered the terror and horror in those few days.

At that time, my family was living in a rubber plantation in the countryside in Malacca. The houses in the plantation were far away from each other. In the day time, we worked in the plantation; in the evening, the whole family would stay together with our neighbour whose house was far away, for safety reasons.

At that time, my third brother was just born. I remember my mother told me that if Malays came this evening, we must all quickly escape into the jungle in the back; but we would have to leave our little brother behind. I was then only eight years old, attending Primary 2. I understood what my mother meant and felt helpless. All I could do was to pray silently that the moment we had to leave our new born brother behind would never come. For me, those days of fear and anxiety are unforgettable.

The 1969 race riots are a case in point to show how rumours and fake news can cause grave damages. Today, the power of fake news can be even greater. I would like to remind Singaporeans that today's fake news is hard to discern and root out. They spread fast and will affect innocent people. Hence, every Singaporean must stay vigilant and work together to control the spread of fake news.

First, let us talk about the challenges in discerning truth from falsehood. Technology can make fake news look more and more credible, almost identical as real news. Have you seen online short videos? As long as there is just one person in the video, this person's image can be matched with different expressions and voices to make it look like the person has actually said those words. In the old days, we used to say “seeing is believing”. Now, however, you cannot even believe what you have seen with your own eyes.

In addition to falsehoods in the form of news, there are also computer programmes which can pretend to be a real person and spread rumours online, misleading people to think that many people hold the same view.

Needless to say that fake news spread fast. Fake news is not only limited to English media. I often receive fake news in Chinese sent from my residents. They asked me whether they should believe news, such as Mao Shan Wang durians containing pesticides, plastic rice and fake seaweed.

I noticed that there are many websites and Facebook pages in China, Taiwan and Malaysia that spread fake news. There are even websites based in Australia targeting at Chinese readers in Singapore. They publish fake news to stir up trouble for Singapore-China and Singapore-US relationships.

I believe that the same phenomenon happens to the Malay and Tamil media as well. Fake news, therefore, can appear in various forms and different languages to influence Singaporeans.

Some people say that a party involved can rebut. However, it shows that the rebuttal tends to be not as “hot” and the transmitting speed is much slower, hence there will still be many people who would believe the fake news. Many fake news spread through WhatsApp. The Government cannot know them all and rebut. Fake news, therefore, can easily become widespread.

Because there can be substantial gains behind spreading fake news, it is very difficult to root them out. There are two kinds of gains. The first is financial gains. For example, the couple who created The Real Singapore website made more than $500,000 from advertising and bought a house in Australia; $500,000. How long will that take for most Singaporeans to make? They made this money without any effort and conscience, simply by fabricating stories overseas, slandering innocent Singaporeans and dividing our society. Although the website has been closed down, there are still other similar websites. I hope the Government can find ways to sanction them.

Another motive is for political influence. Countries can now easily feed fake news to another country. The US has found out that fake news from Russia and East Europe had been read by 150 million people and this could have influenced the US Presidential Election. Now, 150 million is 30 times of our own population. If other countries intend to use fake news to influence our five million people and destroy our racial harmony and stability, it should not be too difficult.

How influential can fake news be? Fake news can affect the livelihood of a common person, such as a durian seller, simply because of the fake news that durians have pesticides. Recently, a coffee shop was wrongly accused for selling fake eggs. I believed the owner must have felt helpless and worried.

Fake news can also slow down the transmission of important information and endanger people's safety. For example, when Zika was spreading in the US, because some people believed that Zika did not come from mosquitoes but from vaccines or pesticides, they refused to let inspectors check whether there were mosquitoes breeding in their home. This led to the spread of the virus and many innocent infants and their families being affected.

There was a lot of fake news circulating in Singapore as well at that time but, luckily, people still believed reliable media and we were able to transmit the right information and control the spread of Zika collectively.

This time, we had passed the test. However, if we allow fake news to spread and undermine people's trust in reliable media, I am afraid we may not be so lucky the next time.

It is not hard to imagine that, for example, a country X would like Singapore to adopt pro-X policies. Like in 1969, they can spread fake news of racial discrimination and marginalisation. Fake news now can spread to the entire island within hours, stirring up suspicion among races. The Government rebuts but country X is prepared beforehand and a new wave of fake news will surface, accusing the Government of racial discrimination. Country X will use social media and a large number of messages left by fake accounts to drown the rebuttal from the Government. In the end, race riots will occur and our economy will slump into recession. After that, country X will look for a puppet to set up a political party, proclaiming to protect the interest of a certain race. The party thereafter manages to acquire political power and adopts pro-X policies. X becomes the ultimate beneficiary but the victims are Singaporeans in general. Those Singaporeans who have forwarded fake news have inadvertently become X’s accomplices.

This is perhaps the worst scenario.

Even superpowers like the US suspect the presence of foreign influence. Small nations like Singapore must also stay vigilant. Not doing so is akin to gambling with Singaporeans' life and livelihood.

Hence, I support the establishment of the Select Committee to study carefully how to tackle fake news. I hope the Committee can pay attention to the following two issues.

First, will this Act undermine online freedom of speech? Second, will this Act be used against the opposition parties and people who criticise the Government?

Deputy Speaker, I support the establishment of the Select Committee to gather feedback from various sectors, to be debated later in Parliament.

Only through an effective Fake News Act can we collectively combat the threats brought by fake news. We should maintain openness and circulation of information while sanctioning and controlling deliberate falsehoods.

At the same time, I hope Singaporeans, including Members of this House, should think twice before forwarding any messages. Exercise due diligence so that the messages will not end up harming innocent citizens. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Minister for Law.

5.14 pm

Mr K Shanmugam: Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank all Members who spoke. I think hon Members ended with a very passionate speech from Er Dr Lee Bee Wah. I thank her for that.

Seven Members of Parliament (MPs) and four Nominated MPs (NMPs) have spoken, all supported the Motion. Many important points have been raised. Examples have been given of the problems caused by falsehoods. Er Lee Bee Wah reminded us about the 1969 race riots caused by rumours of Chinese attacking Malays − examples of real world consequences which have very serious downstream impact for the entire country.

Minister Yaacob talked about the experience his Ministry has had with "The Real Singapore" website − fabricating articles, creating tensions within different racial groups in Singapore − just one example.

Mr Zaqy Mohamed brought up the 2015 Australian example − a misinformation campaign by Australian anti-Islamic groups that halal certification funds terrorism. Ms Sun Xueling told us of her experience where a false story was spread that the roof of Waterway Terraces I in her ward collapsed. Within 30 minutes, we had Police and Civil Defence vehicles, all despatched, and resources used up. Ms Thanaletchimi spoke about the online survey scam relating to NTUC FairPrice that it was rewarding customers with a $500 gift voucher.

Members also spoke about the difficulties we face in responding to falsehoods, and our vulnerability.

Ms Rahayu Mahzam spoke about the difficulty with viral falsehoods, the formation of echo chambers, and the jury is still out on fact-checking mechanisms that Facebook and others have put forward.

Mr de Souza referred to the danger of proliferation and perceived corroboration through automated accounts and multiple websites putting up the same falsehood. So, if it appears in many places, it must true, right?

Mr Henry Kwek referred to the susceptibility to online falsehoods in view of people's psychological make-up, and how falsehoods linger in our minds longer than we think.

Mr Rajaram spoke about how false information will become only more prevalent, not less, as the world becomes more digital.

A number of Members also spoke about possible responses − what this Select Committee ought to consider. A number of points were made.

Mr Seah Kian Peng put out some principles which should guide our response to falsehoods. I think this is something the Select Committee is explicitly asked to consider. Methods might change, but we must be clear about the principle, what we are trying to achieve.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah suggested that the Select Committee pay particular attention to whether any measures taken will affect free speech online or silence the critics of the Government. I think Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Mr Kok Heng Leun also made similar points.

I think the precise form and ambit of any measure to be proposed, including legislation, is something for the Select Committee to consider. But I think most Singaporeans would agree that free online debate − including the expression of critical comments − should not be predicated on deliberate falsehoods. My own view is that combating falsehoods is not contrary to the exercise of freedom of speech. In fact, keeping falsehoods out of our discourse enables freedom of speech to be meaningfully exercised.

Deliberate falsehoods, I think, have got to be contrasted with factual inaccuracies, resulting in false statements being made. You can see that they are different, and I assume that that is something that the Select Committee will consider and how we respond, what sort of responses are suggested, may have to take into account the nature of the falsehoods and the intentions behind the falsehoods.

As Mr Kok Heng Leun pointed out, fake news is often used to divide, mislead and conquer society. And he asked how this segues into biased commentary, and I think these are viewpoints that should be made to the Select Committee.

As I have said, strongly held viewpoints but based on inaccuracies is one type of falsehood. What is the impact on people, what sort of reaction it gets; it is quite different from deliberate, targeted falsehood. How do you react to this? What is the impact of the falsehoods and what sort of reaction, what sort of responses you give to these? I think these are matters that should be considered.

Mr Rajaram called for a multi-pronged approach, including not just legal measures, but also others like public education and digital literacy. He spoke about the need for false information to be counted with immediacy and magnitude to make sure that the accurate response drowns out the falsehood.

I listened carefully to the points made by Mr Rajaram and I agree with many of them. Of course, one of the problems that many countries face with falsehoods is that falsehoods tend to travel much better than truth because they are targeted at stoking up anger and unhappiness. The truth is generally less exciting and, therefore, travels less well. I think you have seen enough articles that point to research which comes to that viewpoint.

Mr Seah Kian Peng and Asst Prof Mohan both suggested that we should strengthen fact-checking capacity of technology companies. And Ms Thanaletchimi and Asst Prof Mohan also suggested that online, fact-checking platforms be created for the public and Nominated Member Kok Heng Leun also made a similar point. I think these are points that the Select Committee can consider. That is why the terms of reference are drafted widely enough.

Ms Thanaletchimi said that the Select Committee perhaps can have people from specialised sectors, including media, if I had not misheard her. The Select Committee will comprise Members of Parliament but they can hear from experts from different areas, sectors, including the media and other sectors.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad and Ms Thanaletchimi referred to measures taken by Germany, the EU, UK, France and New Zealand. In that context, Asst Prof Mohan also talked what the Select Committee can consider.

I think these are all very important points, important questions. But those are questions for the Select Committee to consider more fully when it starts work. That is why we have crafted the terms of reference broadly, so that different perspectives can come in.

Ms Sun Xueling asked how the Select Committee will be organised. Mr Kok also expressed the hope that the Select Committee would consult broadly and consider a number of issues. Those are again for the Select Committee to consider after it is constituted.

For my part, I hope that different stakeholders will come forward – experts, media, technology companies and the public. I think the process will benefit from different views, different perspectives. Hopefully, the process will help Singaporeans better understand what is at stake. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Question is the Motion as moved by the Minister for Law. As many as are of the opinion say "Aye".

Hon Members say "Aye".

Mr Deputy Speaker: To the contrary say "No". I think the "Ayes" have it —

Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is an important Motion on an important issue. I think it is good to have on record the position of Members. I ask for a Division, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Will hon Members who support the Division, please stand at your places? As there are more than five Members who support the Division, a Division will be called. Clerk of Parliament, ring the division bells.

After two minutes –

Mr Deputy Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors.

Question put on the Motion as moved by the Minister for Law.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Shanmugam, you have asked for a Division, would you like to proceed with the division?

Mr K Shanmugam: Yes, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: May I remind Members that they are to be seated in their designated seats and should only start to vote when the voting buttons on their arm rests start to blink. You may start voting now.

Division taken: Ayes, 80; Noes, Nil; Abstention, Nil

Mr Deputy Speaker: 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. Before I proceed to declare the results of the vote, are there any Members who wish to claim his vote has not been displayed or displayed incorrectly on the screen?

As there are none, I will proceed to declare the voting results now. There are 80 "Ayes, zero "Noes", and zero "Abstentions". The "Ayes" have it, the "Ayes" have it.

Resolved,

“(1) That Parliament appoints a Select Committee to examine and report on:

(a) the phenomenon of using digital technology to deliberately spread falsehoods online;

(b) the motivations and reasons for the spreading of such falsehoods, and the types of individuals and entities, both local and foreign, which engage in such activity;

(c) the consequences that the spread of online falsehoods can have on Singapore society, including to our institutions and democratic processes; and

(d) how Singapore can prevent and combat online falsehoods, including:

(i) the principles that should guide Singapore's response; and

(ii) any specific measures, including legislation, that should be taken.

(2) That the Select Committee shall comprise –

(a) Deputy Speaker Charles Chong as Chairman; and

(b) seven Members from the Government benches, one Member from the Opposition benches, and one Nominated Member, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.’”