Measuring Public Interest Threshold and Maintaining Public Trust under Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Framework

10 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) how is the public interest threshold of online statements of falsehoods determined and measured under the Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA); (b) whether the Ministry will consider recommending that Ministers state which public interest criteria under section 7(1b) of POFMA are met and how so, when requesting for a direction to be issued; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider creating a central listing of all issued directions on the POFMA website.

11 Ms Anthea Ong asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what is the Ministry's position on perceptions of a partisan political bias over the recent applications of POFMA and how this may impact public trust in objectivity and independence of the Government's instruments of combatting online falsehoods; and (b) what steps are being taken to maintain public trust in light of such perceptions, especially given the critical role of public trust in buttressing society against coordinated, malicious fake news.

The Minister for Communications and Information (Mr S Iswaran): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I have your consent to take Question Nos 10 and 11 together?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, please proceed.

Mr S Iswaran: Thank you. In recent weeks, four Government Ministries have issued Correction Directions under POFMA to address false statements of fact made by various parties about issues of fundamental importance to Singaporeans. The falsehoods allege that the Government mismanaged public funds, abused police powers and discriminated against Singaporean citizens in favour of foreigners.

Failing to deal decisively with such falsehoods will erode and even undermine public trust in our institutions, with serious consequences for our democracy. The Government and indeed Members of this House have a duty to ensure that our citizens are not misled or misinformed by such falsehoods, and that is precisely why POFMA was enacted.

In all of the POFMA cases so far, Correction Directions have been issued. These Directions require that the facts be placed alongside the original posts so that Singaporeans can read both versions and draw their own conclusions.

Would the Member not agree that the best way to maintain public trust in Government and our institutions is to juxtapose the truth with the falsehood, and allow our citizens to decide what the facts are? And would the Member also not agree that the law should apply even if those who have put out the falsehoods thus far happen to have political affiliations?

Furthermore, POFMA requires that the Minister provide the basis in accordance with existing laws for her or his determination that a statement is a falsehood. In the recent cases, the falsehoods and the reasons for using POFMA were made clear in the clarifications that were issued by the respective Ministries. If the recipient of the POFMA Direction disputes the facts, quick and inexpensive recourse to the Courts is available. These provisions ensure transparency and accountability in the POFMA process.

Finally, the Nominated Member also asked if there are plans to create a central listing of POFMA Directions. All Government Corrections issued under POFMA are already compiled in a section of the Government’s fact-checking website, "Factually". In addition, the POFMA Office website has a list of the press releases issued together with the POFMA Directions.

Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for the very considered responses. The Minister had assured the House and the public in May last year when we were debating on the POFMA Bill that the Bill will not be far-reaching using the example of the 39 take-down orders under the Broadcasting Act since 1996. I think he mentioned that it was an average of one a year. POFMA has been used five times within a month, and just two months after coming into effect. Will the Minister please clarify if this considered far-reaching or not?

The second question I have is: the Minister has clarified that POFMA has a central listing on its website. But could I ask the Minister to clarify if the POFMA Office will provide a full description of the public interest rationale each time that POFMA is used according to section 7(1b) of POFMA. There are actually six specific public interest thresholds that are listed there in the Act.

Last but not least, could I ask the Minister: we all agree that we are seeing an alarming rise of fake news. Can the Minister enlighten us on the number of fake news that are monitored and flagged by the POFMA Office and the various Ministries every month? I know that Thailand's anti-fake news centre talked about 8,000 fake news that were monitored and flagged just within the month of November 2019 alone. Can the Minister assure the House and Singaporeans that the Ministries and the POFMA Office are also monitoring and flagging news to use POFMA on, whether non-partisan or partisan? For example, the fake NUS Facebook group ran for a while without being "POFMA-ed" until Facebook, itself, took it down.

Mr S Iswaran: Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member asked several questions. Let me try and deal with them. First, is the use of the legislation appropriate, measured and fit for purpose? And I think the question is yes. I do not think that you should go by the sheer number of times that it has been used in this period. I think it is a confluence of factors that has led to that. But if you look at the facts of the matter, it is very simple.

In each and every case, the Minister, advised by his officials, has had to ascertain that there was a falsehood in accordance with our existing law. Second, he or she has had to be satisfied that there is a public interest requirement. Third, they have explained clearly – each Ministry in each of its Directions, it has issued a clear clarification as to what the falsehood is and why POFMA is being used, and that includes, therefore, a broad explanation as to what is the public interest consideration, which is encompassed in there. And thereafter, avenues of appeal are available to the Minister, as indeed some have chosen to exercise and the recourse to Courts is also available.

So, if you look at it in its totality, I think there is proportionality, there is fit for purpose and we have taken actions according to the situation as warranted.

The Member has asked about the public interest rationale according to section 7. The fact of the matter is, and if you read the section carefully, it starts by saying "without detracting from the generality” of the point of “public interest", and then proceeds to list a few examples. Those are intended to be illustrative but they are not exhaustive. What that means therefore is when the Act is exercised, the clarification and the explanation given in that clarification notice by the Minister will have the evidence to support the public interest case. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister for Communications and Information", Official Report, 6 January 2020, Vol 94, Issue No 115, Correction by Written Statement section.]

I think the final point is on tracking and numbers. We do track but I do not think we have the resources to go around policing this in great degree. But I would add, if indeed the numbers are anything like what the Member has cited for Thailand, if it runs into thousands, then four or five POFMA cases is, I think, quite proportional and not at all far-reaching.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister. I just have two supplementary questions. The first one is: does the identity of the person making the false statement matter for the public interest test, that is independently of other factors? And I would hope that the Minister could make clear that it is virality, the damage that the statement causes that matters and not who says it. Otherwise, I am very worried that it might look as if the Government is setting up speed traps where perhaps Opposition politicians drive but not elsewhere. And that is a real concern, I think.

Second, would the Minister agree that for the falsehoods which are not viral or rapidly damaging – the slow drip problems – could it be more effective to combat these with education and information rather than a Correction Order? And Parliament had agreed that these powers under the POFMA were necessary to quickly correct falsehoods that might turn a spark into a flame. But those powers do not seem as well-suited for educating the public about our financial reserves or about our labour market policy.

Mr S Iswaran: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am concerned about the time.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Carry on. I think if you need an extension, the Leader of the House will move the extension. Leader, would you like to move the extension?

Mr S Iswaran: Not quite the response I had expected. [Laughter.]