Fake news law invoked for the first time over Facebook post

[Mista]

SINGAPORE - Singapore’s law against fake news has been used for the first time, with Progress Singapore Party (PSP) member Brad Bowyer being asked to correct false statements he made about investments by GIC, Temasek and other government-linked companies.

A Nov 13 Facebook post he made “contains clearly false statements of fact, and undermines public trust in the Government”, the Ministry of Finance said in a statement on Monday (Nov 25).

In particular, Mr Bowyer had implied that the Government controls Temasek and GIC’s commercial decisions, which is false, the Government said on its fact-checking website Factually.

Mr Bowyer, who was originally from Britain but is now a Singaporean, was issued a correction direction on Monday under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma).

By late morning he had put up a correction note at the top of his Facebook post saying that the post “contains false statements of fact”, along with a link to an article providing the correct facts.

Pofma was passed by Parliament in May and took effect on Oct 2.

The law gives ministers the power to act against a piece of falsehood on the Internet when it is in the public interest to do so.

They can order that it be taken down or ask for corrections to be put up alongside it.

Critics had said it could have a chilling effect. Addressing these concerns, the Government had said it would resort to take down orders only in the more egregious cases.

In Monday’s case, Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat had instructed the Pofma Office to issue a correction direction, which requires that Mr Bowyer put up in full a correction note along with his post, that still remained online.

When contacted, Mr Bowyer told The Straits Times he had no issue with the correction direction.

He later added in a second Facebook post: “I feel it is fair to have both points of view and clarifications and corrections of fact when necessary.

“I do my best to use public facts and make informed statements of opinion based on the details I have access too. I am not against being asked to make clarifications or corrections especially if it is in the public interest.”

Mr Bowyer, who had previously been a People’s Action Party member before he left to join the People’s Voice Party and eventually PSP, also said the incident would not deter him from being vocal about social and political issues.

In his Nov 13 Facebook post, he had criticised GIC and Temasek as well as other government-linked companies for certain investments that he said would rack up huge financial losses.

He also said the Government had a “fiduciary responsibility” to account for the losses.

Describing these statements as falsehoods, the Government said on its fact-checking website Factually: “Mr Bowyer implies that the Singapore Government controls Temasek’s and GIC’s commercial decisions. This is false.”

It added: “Mr Bowyer uses false and misleading statements to smear the reputation of Temasek and GIC.”

Contrary to these claims, said the Government on its Factually website, the investment company and sovereign wealth fund are run on market principles, independent of the Government.

“The Government’s role is to ensure that Temasek and GIC have competent boards, which ensure that their respective mandates are met. The Government also holds the boards of Temasek and GIC accountable for their respective overall performances,” said the Government.

The MOF, echoing this, said that Temasek and GIC have made positive returns over the long term and have contributed significantly to the national budget, contrary to the huge losses that Mr Bowyer implied they would incur in his post.

In response to the Government’s corrections and clarifications, Mr Bowyer said in a third Facebook post that he had merely been asking fair questions about why the Government does not have more oversight of GIC and Temasek, with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong being the chairman of GIC and his wife Ho Ching as chief executive officer of Temasek.

He wrote: “I feel we should all do our best to comment factually and responsibly however when questions arise just asserting something is false or giving irrelevant information does not answer valid questions. With more transparency, clarification and accountability we can rest easier that our interests are in the safe hands.”

https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...d-bowyer-to-add-correction-notice-to-facebook

/

Corrections and clarifications regarding falsehoods posted by Mr Brad Bowyer

https://www.gov.sg/factually/content/clarifications-on-falsehoods-posted-by-mr-brad-bowyer

Corrections and clarifications regarding falsehoods posted by Mr Brad Bowyer

1. The Facebook post by Mr Brad Bowyer contains false statements of fact and misleading statements.

Falsehoods

I. Singapore Government’s involvement in investment decisions by Temasek and GIC

2. Mr Bowyer implies that the Singapore Government controls Temasek’s and GIC’s commercial decisions. This is false.

3. The Government does not influence, let alone direct, the individual investment decisions made by Temasek and GIC. Which companies they invest in, or divest from, is entirely the responsibility of their respective management teams. The Government likewise does not interfere in the commercial decisions of Temasek’s and GIC’s portfolio companies.

4. Temasek and GIC are run on market principles, independent of the Government. Many of their portfolio companies are publicly listed. The Government’s role is to ensure that Temasek and GIC have competent boards, which ensure that their respective mandates are met. The Government also holds the boards of Temasek and GIC accountable for their respective overall performances.

II. Amaravati Project

5. Mr Bowyer says “…we also saw the recent canning of the Amaravati city project part of the S$4 billion already dumped into Andhra Pradesh by GLCs and related parties so India has not been so good an investment choice after all…”. There are implicit factual assertions that (1) a substantial part of S$4 billion invested in Andhra Pradesh was put into the Amaravati project; and (2) S$4 billion has been poorly invested (“dumped”) by Government-linked companies (“GLCs”) and related parties in Andhra Pradesh. These are false.

6. First, the Singapore Consortium (comprising Ascendas Singbridge Pte Ltd (now part of CapitaLand Group) and Sembcorp Development Ltd) in the Amaravati project has stated publicly that the costs incurred have been limited to design services prior to commencement of execution works on the ground, amounting to a few million dollars. There are no billions of dollars involved.

7. Second, not only GLCs and related parties have invested in Andhra Pradesh. Several other Singaporean companies have also done so. An example of a non-GLC investment in Andhra Pradesh is Indus Coffee Pte Ltd, a subsidiary of a listed company in Singapore.

III. Salt Bae

8. Mr Bowyer asserts that Temasek invested in the debt-ridden parent company which owns Salt Bae. This is false.

9. The Salt Bae chain of restaurants is owned by a company called D.ream International BV, which operates 60 restaurants throughout the world via four operating subsidiaries. Temasek invested in D.ream International BV, and not in one of D.ream International BV’s shareholders called Doğuş Holding A.Ş. The company that is reportedly in difficulties according to the article cited by Mr Bowyer, is Doğuş Holding A.Ş., and not D.ream International BV.

Additional Clarifications

10. Additional clarifications on the points Mr Bowyer has raised are set out below.

Temasek, GIC and public funds

11. Mr Bowyer uses false and misleading statements to smear the reputation of Temasek and GIC:

a. Over the past 20 years, Temasek’s total shareholder return has been 7% (annualised, in SGD terms). Temasek’s overall portfolio has grown from less than S$100 billion in 2002 to over S$300 billion today.

b. Temasek is subject to market scrutiny and discipline. Since 2004, Temasek has published its financial information annually. Temasek also issues Bonds and Eurocommercial Paper to retail, institutional, accredited and other specified investors as part of its financial discipline. Additionally, Temasek has been rated Aaa by Moody’s Investors Service and AAA by S&P Global Ratings, ever since its inaugural ratings in 2004.

c. Under the Net Investment Returns (NIR) framework, the expected returns of Temasek, GIC and MAS together, contribute around 20% of Government revenue currently. The Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) is the single largest contributor to Government revenue, exceeding GST.

d. This contrasts starkly with most other countries. In the United States, 1 out of every 10 dollars of US federal government revenue goes towards servicing interest payments on the federal debt. In Singapore, 1 out of every 5 dollars of revenue spent comes from the returns on our reserves. In other words, instead of having to tax citizens to service interest on government debt, Singapore has managed to increase social and other spending through NIRC from Temasek, GIC and MAS, while keeping taxes low.

e. Temasek and GIC are managed prudently and competently. No other sovereign wealth funds have contributed so significantly to national budgets and the economy, without relying on natural resources or a large domestic economy.

Keppel

12. Mr Bowyer suggests Keppel Corporation or its subsidiary has suffered losses due to the $0.5 billion fine imposed. This is misleading.

13. In the last 33 years, Keppel has made profits every year. In the last 4 years, Keppel has made profits of S$3.4 billion, including a S$196 million net profit in the year when the Brazilian fine was imposed. Keppel has been declaring dividends regularly as a listed company to all its shareholders, including Temasek.

Bharti Airtel

14. Mr Bowyer refers to Singtel’s investment in Bharti Airtel. Singtel’s shareholding today is valued at S$13 billion, which is more than double its investment to date of S$5.1 billion. Bharti Airtel faces a number of recent regulatory and Indian Supreme Court decisions. These are matters for Bharti Airtel and Singtel to address.

Amaravati Project

15. Mr Bowyer suggests that S$4 billion in investments by GLCs and related parties in Andhra Pradesh have all been doing poorly. Mr Bowyer makes this sweeping statement, but gives no basis for it.

 

[Mista]

In Singapore, 1 out of every 5 dollars of revenue spent comes from the returns on our reserves. In other words, instead of having to tax citizens to service interest on government debt, Singapore has managed to increase social and other spending through NIRC from Temasek, GIC and MAS, while keeping taxes low.

No other sovereign wealth funds have contributed so significantly to national budgets and the economy, without relying on natural resources or a large domestic economy.

Great to see action being taken, finally. Plenty of fake news floating around in the social media in recent years, usually willfully spreading misinformation to discredit the authorities for political purposes.

And one of the most common fakes news is claiming that the sovereign wealth funds are making investment losses everywhere and that the government is being incompetent and wasting taxpayers' money.

While in reality half of the net investment returns are used to fund our national budget every year, and it is currently our largest source of revenue. How is that possible if you're making investment losses every year?

 

[vi-va]

Great to see action being taken, finally. Plenty of fake news floating around in the social media in recent years, usually willfully spreading misinformation to discredit the authorities for political purposes.

And one of the most common fakes news is claiming that the sovereign wealth funds are making investment losses everywhere and that the government is being incompetent and wasting taxpayers' money.

While in reality half of the net investment returns are used to fund our national budget every year, and it is currently our largest source of revenue. How is that possible if you're making investment losses every year?

They need a puppet, Singapore is on spot light because of the location. A HK like rebel is planned for many years.
Discredit current government, get a opposition party in charge. kneel or sanction.

 

[Mista]

Another one. Facebook has complied with the Singapore government's order.

Facebook bows to Singapore's 'fake news' law with post 'correction'

Facebook has added a correction notice to a post that Singapore's government said contained false information.

It is the first time Facebook has issued such a notice under the city-state's controversial "fake news" law.

Singapore claimed the post, by fringe news site States Times Review (STR), contained "scurrilous accusations".

The note issued by the social media giant said it "is legally required to tell you that the Singapore government says this post has false information".

Facebook's addition was embedded at the bottom of the original post, which was not altered. It was only visible to social media users in Singapore.

In an emailed statement to the BBC, Facebook said it had applied a label to a post "determined by the Singapore government to contain false information", as required under the "fake news" law.

The company - which has its Asia headquarters in the city-state - said it hoped assurances that the law would not impact on free expression "will lead to a measured and transparent approach to implementation".

How did we get here?
The States Times Review post contained accusations about the arrest of an alleged whistleblower and election-rigging.

The government said no one had been arrested, and accused the STR of making "scurrilous accusations against the elections department, the prime minister, and the election process in Singapore".

Authorities ordered editor Alex Tan to correct the post but the Australian citizen refused, saying he would "not comply with any order from a foreign government".

Authorities then called on Facebook to "publish a correction notice" in line with the "fake news" law passed earlier this year.

What is the 'fake news' law?
The law, known as the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation bill, came into effect in October.

It allows the government to order online platforms to remove and correct what it deems to be false statements that are "against the public interest".

A person found guilty of doing this in Singapore could be fined heavily and face a prison sentence of up to five years.

The law also bans the use of fake accounts or bots to spread fake news - this carries penalties of up to S$1m (£563,000, $733,700) and a jail term of up to 10 years.

What's been said about it?
Critics say the law threatens freedom of expression. Amnesty International said it would "give authorities unchecked powers to clamp down on online views of which it disapproves".

But Singapore's law minister said free speech "should not be affected by this bill", adding that it was aimed only at tackling "falsehoods, bots, trolls and fake accounts".

The government has argued that the law safeguards against abuse of power by allowing judicial reviews of its orders.

Has anyone else been affected?
Singapore's government invoked the law for the first time on Monday to order opposition politician Brad Bowyer to correct a Facebook post questioning the independence of state investment funds.

Mr Bowyer complied, adding a note to the post saying it "contains false statements of fact".

On the same day, Mr Bowyer wrote a new post saying he was "not against being asked to make clarifications or corrections especially if it is in the public interest".

But on Thursday, Mr Bowyer clarified his earlier statement, saying: "Although I have no problems in following the law...that does not mean that I agree with the position they are taking or admit to any false statements on my part."

He also said that, under the law, he must post the correction notice "regardless of whether I make an appeal".

bbc.com/news/world-asia-50613341

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

That's nice and all, but there's a deeper problem being missed here. What's someone with a name like "Brad Bowyer" doing in a Singaporean political party?

 

[Mista]

That's nice and all, but there's a deeper problem being missed here. What's someone with a name like "Brad Bowyer" doing in a Singaporean political party?

Mr Bowyer, who was originally from Britain but is now a Singaporean, was issued a correction direction on Monday under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma).

 

[8888888888888]

Wonder how long this law gets popular overseas ?

 

[Mista]

Wonder how long this law gets popular overseas ?

Nigeria is already copying the bill lol.

From title to content, Nigeria’s ‘social media bill’ is a ‘replica’ of Singapore’s act

https://www.thecable.ng/fact-check-is-nigerias-social-media-bill-truly-a-replica-of-singapores-act

While the bill seeking to regulate social media is still fighting its way through the national assembly, fresh details have shown that it got its content, form and intellectualism from far-away Singapore in Asia.

On November 6, the bill, sponsored by Mohammed Sani Musa, senator representing Niger east, was read for the first time at the senate. It has since passed second reading.

Nigerians have expressed their reservations about the bill, saying it is an infringement on their constitutional rights.

A look at both documents by TheCable shows that Musa only changed some terms from that of Singapore to give his bill a feel of originality—the similarity, however, remains glaring.

One Frederick Odorige was the one who first drew attention to the striking similarities between both bills.

In a YouTube video, Odorige said: “That bill is not an original document. It was plagiarised from another country.”

Singapore’s 67-page act titled “Protection From Online Falsehoods And Manipulation Act 2019”, was passed by its parliament on May 8, 2019 and assented to by President Halimah Yacob on June 3, 2019.

Similarly, Nigeria’s bill, though 35 pages, is titled “Protection From Internet Falsehoods and Manipulation and Other Related Matters Bill’, with Musa craftily substituting “internet” as used in the Singapore version for “online” and adding an extension for Nigeria’s.

Also, the part 2 of Singapore’s act reads: “Prohibition Of Communication Of False Statements Of Fact In Singapore” while the bill in Nigeria reads “Prohibition Of Transmission Of False Statements Of Fact”, with “transmission” replacing “communication” and removal of Singapore from the line.

In part three of the bill, Musa substituted “direction” with “regulation” while some lines read exactly the same.

Part 2, section 7 of Singapore act states that: “(1) A person must not do any act in or outside Singapore in order to communicate in Singapore a statement knowing or having reason to believe that — (a) it is a false statement of fact; and (b) the communication of the statement in Singapore is likely to — (i) be prejudicial to the security of Singapore or any part of Singapore; (ii) be prejudicial to public health, public safety, public tranquillity or public finances; (iii) be prejudicial to the friendly relations of Singapore with other countries; (IV) influence the outcome of an election to the office of President, a general election of Members of Parliament, a by-election of a Member of Parliament, or a referendum…”

In the Nigerian version, part 2 section 3 reads: “(1) A person must not do any act in or outside Nigeria in order to transmit in Nigeria a statement knowing or having reason to believe that — (a) it is a false statement of fact; and (b) the communication of the statement in Nigeria is likely to — (i) be prejudicial to the security of Nigeria or any part of Nigeria; (ii) be prejudicial to public health, public safety, public tranquillity or public finances; (iii) be prejudicial to the friendly relations of Nigeria with other countries; (IV) influence the outcome of an election to any office in a general election or a referendum…”

While Singapore proposes “a fine not exceeding $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both,” Musa’s social media regulation bill proposes “a fine not exceeding N300, 000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both”.

Justifying the similitude between his bill and Singapore’s act, Musa said legislation are public documents and influence the forms in other jurisdictions, arguing that they are not the property of countries.

“Legislation across the globe are public documents and national legislation do not claim right over them as to form the basis for plagiarism over them, their effectiveness being limited to the territorial jurisdiction of each sovereignty,” he wrote on Twitter.

“It is preposterous that this is said to be an instance of plagiarism. All over the world, Legislation in other Jurisdictions do influence the form and substances in other jurisdictions, particularly and Present the same or similar challenges of regulation.

“It is therefore inevitable that lessons be drawn from other jurisdictions in fashioning out workable solutions in our own country.”

 

[Mista]

The Technology 202: Facebook issues disclaimer demanded by Singapore government

Facebook users in Singapore spotted a correction on the social network over the weekend as the company for the first time complied with a controversial local law aimed at curbing misinformation.

“Facebook is legally required to tell you that the Singapore government says this post has false information,” said a disclaimer accompanying the post that the Singapore government ordered the social network to post, according to the Wall Street Journal.

It’s the first time an American tech company is known to have complied with the country's Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), which took effect in October. Singapore's law is one of the most aggressive statutes drafted to date as governments around the world step up their regulation of tech giants. It allows government ministers to order tech companies to issue correction notices or remove material that officials say is false. But critics are concerned the law could open the door to broad government censorship.

“Singapore's law is designed specifically to put Internet companies like Facebook in a headlock to comply with these rights abusing edicts,” Phil Robertson, Human Rights Watch deputy Asia director, told me. "With huge, onerous fines and the possibility of even prison time, it's going to be hard for any company to not comply”

The Singapore government ordered Facebook on Friday to run the disclaimer on a post from the fringe news site States Times Review, which contained accusations about the arrest of an alleged whistleblower that the Singapore government denies ever happened. The ministers initially ordered Facebook user Alex Tan, who runs the State Times Review, to run a correction on the post. But Tan, who does not live in Singapore and says he is an Australian citizen, refused to do so, according to a Reuters report. The Singapore government is now investigating Tan. So Facebook posted a disclaimer instead.

The Facebook correction is just the latest flashpoint in an ongoing debate about the law. Government officials say it's a key line of defense against misinformation and interference in elections, but critics worry this could just be the beginning of a flood of government requests that could have a chilling effect on online free expression. They expect it's only a matter of time before other companies receive similar orders.

"Singapore is thorough when it comes to abusing the right of free expression, so I expect we'll see notices required by other U.S. tech firms like Twitter and Google if the [States] Times Review follows through and posts its content on other platforms,” Robertson said. "It was ill-advised for these U.S. tech companies to establish such a massive, on the ground presence in Singapore, and the government is going to use that against them."

Ashok Kumar Mirpuri, Singapore's ambassador to the United States, told the Washington Post in a letter that POFMA helps protect Singapore from the risks of fake news.

"Singapore – an English speaking, multi-racial, multi-religious society open to the world – is more vulnerable to this threat than most," Mirpuri wrote. "POFMA seeks to restore balance to the debate, by requiring tech companies to carry clarifications to reach the same target audience as the false statements.”

Facebook cautioned the Singapore government to take a measured approach as the government begins enforcing the new law.

“As it is early days of the law coming into effect, we hope the Singapore Government’s assurances that it will not impact free expression will lead to a measured and transparent approach to implementation,” Facebook spokesman Andy Stone said in a statement.

Facebook is confronting the order as its chief executive Mark Zuckerberg has made a major push for free speech in Washington with the company confronting widespread criticism for not doing enough to limit the spread of falsehoods and hate on its service. Robertson noted Facebook took steps to signal it doesn't support Singapore's law when it issued its disclaimer.

"By phrasing the correction the way it did, putting it only on the post that is the subject of Singapore's action and ensuring the correction notice is only seen by those in Singapore, Facebook is doing the legal minimum and signaling it is not supportive of Singapore's requirement but it has no other choice," Robertson said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ingapore-government/5de3faf188e0fa652bbbdafa/

Singapore Govt calls out Washington Post for 'perpetuating false allegations' over Pofma article

SINGAPORE - The Government has called out The Washington Post for "perpetuating false allegations" after the American newspaper ran only parts of a letter from Singapore's ambassador to the United States.

Mr Ashok Kumar Mirpuri had responded to a Dec 2 article in the online edition of the Post about Facebook complying with the Government's directive to issue a correction under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma) last month.

The article had pointed out that Pofma could have a "chilling effect on online free expression" and "open the door to broad government censorship", points which Mr Mirpuri rebutted.

On Monday (Dec 16) evening, the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) made public a letter that Mr Bernard Toh, director of the ministry's information policy division, had written to Washington Post publisher Fred Ryan.

In the letter, Mr Toh noted that the Post had declined to publish Mr Mirpuri's response on the grounds that it only ran letters on articles that appeared in the print edition of its paper. The Government was then directed to the article's author, Ms Cat Zakrzewski.

But Ms Zakrzewski declined to carry the ambassador's response in full, only including a "brief quote" from the letter that ignored the crux of the reply, Mr Toh said.

"It is ironic that the Post should have responded thus, given that your article had accused us of censorship. By refusing to carry our letter or report it more adequately, the Post is perpetuating false allegations."

Mr Toh added that the ministry was making the letter public "in the interest of transparency" and to put its rebuttal on the public record.

The Post article on Dec 2 was published shortly after Facebook put up a notice on a post on the States Times Review page, reading: "Facebook is legally required to tell you that the Singapore Government says this post has false information."

In his letter to the Post, Mr Mirpuri said censorship entails banning or suppressing offending material.

But the Government has "only required Facebook to append to the offending post a link to a factual correction. The original post remains intact," he noted.

"Readers can read it together with the Government's response, and decide for themselves which tells the truth," he said. "This can no more have 'a chilling effect on online free expression' than your publishing this letter can stun The Washington Post into silence."

Mr Mirpuri pointed out that the Post has called out technology companies for publishing and spreading falsehoods online, and warned of the threat this poses to democracy.

Singapore, as an English-speaking, multiracial and multi-religious society open to the world, is more vulnerable to the threat of online falsehoods than most, he added. "Pofma seeks to restore balance to the debate, by requiring tech companies to carry clarifications to reach the same target audience as the false statements."

Part of this response was included in the Post's article.

Mr Toh said in his letter that Ms Zakrzewski had "ignored the crux of (the Government's) response: That contrary to allegations that the Singapore government had censored a Facebook post that it deemed to be false, the original post remained intact and accessible".

RESPONDING TO HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

The Government also issued a response to Mr Phil Robertson, the deputy Asia director of non-governmental organisation Human Rights Watch.

Mr Robertson was quoted in The Post's article as saying that Pofma is designed "specifically to put Internet companies like Facebook in a headlock to comply with these rights abusing edicts".

"With huge, onerous fines and the possibility of even prison time, it's going to be hard for any company to not comply," Mr Robertson said. He added that Facebook's phrasing of the correction indicated that it was "doing the legal minimum and signalling it is not supportive of Singapore's requirement but it has no other choice".

In a separate letter to Mr Robertson, which was also made public on Monday, Mr Toh reiterated points that Mr Mirpuri made in his response to the Post, including that Human Rights Watch had been invited to appear before the Parliamentary Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods last year.

The Select Committee was convened to come up with recommendations on how Singapore can tackle fake news, with the public encouraged to write in on causes, consequences and possible countermeasures.

Mr Toh noted that Human Rights Watch had originally accepted the invitation. However, it declined after being told it would also be questioned about a report issued in December 2017, which stated that the Singapore Government was suppressing freedom of expression.

The organisation was offered eight alternative dates and the option of speaking via video-conference, Mr Toh said, but "repeatedly came up with excuses to decline".

He added that the Government is willing to debate the issue with Human Rights Watch at any university forum in Singapore.

"To ensure full publicity for this debate, we will livestream this exchange on Facebook," Mr Toh added. "We hope that you do not refuse our invitation yet again."

Mr Robertson did not respond to requests for comment.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...etuating-false-allegations-over-pofma-article

 

[Mista]

Singapore strikes its first official blows against fake news

A tough new law adds to the government’s criticism-suppressing arsenal

“Facebook is legally required to tell you that the Singapore government says this post has false information,” reads the message, which links to a government website. It appeared on November 30th on a post published by the States Times Review, a blog which delights in hectoring the Singaporean authorities. The post alleged that the country’s elections are rigged and that the next one could “possibly turn Singapore into a Christian state”.

The idea that the ruling People’s Action Party is trying to turn Singapore into a theocracy is absurd—even “scurrilous”, as the government put it. (The contention that it rigs elections is more defensible, although it does so not by stuffing ballot boxes, but by making life difficult for its critics and threatening adverse consequences for areas that vote for the opposition. It has won every general election in the past 60 years.)

The government, deeming the post false, asked its founder, who lives in Australia, to publish a correction notice under the Prevention from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (pofma), which came into effect in October. He refused, noting that the Australian authorities had not asked him to remove anything, but thanked the Singaporean government for boosting traffic to his site. Officials had more luck with Facebook, which made the notice visible to users in Singapore. States Times Review’s website is blocked in Singapore, so Facebook is its chief means of reaching people there.

The episode was not pofma’s only outing in recent weeks. The finance minister, Heng Swee Keat, who is widely expected to become the next prime minister, decided to invoke it against an obscure opposition politician, Brad Bowyer, who had questioned the independence and investment nous of Singapore’s sovereign-wealth funds. Mr Bowyer’s post had indeed contained errors, on which the authorities seized. But its main contention—that the government’s investments were not as well managed as they could be—is clearly a subjective matter.

The hubbub over the two orders relates more to the display of pofma’s powers than to the details of the posts themselves. The law aims “to prevent the electronic communication in Singapore of false statements of fact” and “to suppress support for and counteract the effects of such communication”, among other things. It allows any minister, upon declaring a particular statement to be false, to order its removal or correction. A special pofma office advises ministers on how best to act. It also offers codes of practice to digital platforms.

The accused can only seek recourse at the High Court after the minister in question has rejected an appeal (which costs about $150). The court can then rule on whether the original statement was indeed misleading. Individuals found guilty of ignoring correction orders or of deliberately spreading lies face criminal penalties, including prison terms of up to ten years, fines of S$100,000 ($73,000) or both. Social-media firms face fines of up to S$1m.

Human rights groups, a un Special Rapporteur and a cluster of tech firms have all opposed pofma. Its vast scope—from private group messages to online videos and beyond—is a particular concern. And it joins a host of other legislation which already keeps critics in check. The country’s constitution limits free speech with “such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient”. Contempt-of-court law has been used to target the odd journalist, cartoonist or blogger. Defamation cases trouble other outspoken figures. Singapore sits below Russia, Afghanistan and many of its own neighbours in the latest ranking of press freedom compiled by Reporters Without Borders, a watchdog.

Sending fabricated messages was already a crime under the Telecommunications Act. But pofma offers the government ways to respond to criticism it deems unreasonable faster and in a (slightly) less heavy-handed manner. Facebook has said that it hopes the law will not impinge on free expression. To say it already has would presumably attract a pofma order.

https://www.economist.com/asia/2019...es-its-first-official-blows-against-fake-news

Singapore's envoy to UK rebuts Economist article on Pofma

Rather than limit free speech, it boosts quality of public discourse, she says

An Economist article on Singapore's fake news law has drawn a rebuttal from Singapore's High Commissioner to the United Kingdom Foo Chi Hsia.

In a letter published on the magazine's website this week, Ms Foo stated that the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma) does not limit free speech - rather it enhances the quality of public discourse.

She added that the law "strengthens and safeguards proper public accountability that must necessarily underpin democracies".

"Online posts that have been corrected remain available in full, but with links to the Government's response appended," she said.

"Readers can see both and decide for themselves which is the truth. How does twinning factual replies to falsehoods limit free speech?"

Ms Foo was responding to an article published on Dec 7, which characterised Pofma as an addition to the Singapore Government's "criticism-suppressing arsenal" and referenced two recent uses of the law.

The first use of Pofma was against opposition politician Brad Bowyer, who had questioned the independence and investment decisions of Singapore's sovereign wealth fund GIC and investment company Temasek.

The London-based Economist wrote that while Mr Bowyer's post had contained errors - on which the authorities "seized" - its main contention that the Government's investments were not as well managed as they could be "is clearly a subjective matter".

The second use of Pofma was against socio-political website States Times Review, which alleged that the Republic's elections are rigged and that the next one could "possibly turn Singapore into a Christian state".

In her letter, Ms Foo said The Economist had misrepresented the falsehoods that the Government had corrected. The States Times Review article also made false claims that the Government has arrested specific critics, she said.

Meanwhile, Mr Bowyer's post "did not only question the 'investment nous of Singapore's sovereign wealth funds', but was based on false allegations of losses that never occurred", she added.
The High Commissioner noted that fake stories have influenced British politics, "notably in the Brexit campaign".

She added that legislatures around the world have been grappling with this problem.

Singapore, as an English-speaking, multiracial and multi-religious society open to the world, is more vulnerable to the threat of online falsehoods than most, she said, reiterating a point made by the Republic's Ambassador to the United States in a recent letter to The Washington Post.

"Having observed in Britain and elsewhere the cost of doing nothing, we decided to act."

She added: "Singapore's laws are designed to meet our own context and needs. We have no ambition to set any example for other countries, but neither do we make any apologies for defending our own interests."

Separately, a Singapore Government spokesman yesterday said non-governmental organisation Human Rights Watch has not responded to its invitation to debate the fake news law.

The Washington Post ran a Dec 2 article on Pofma, in which it quoted Human Rights Watch's deputy director of Asia division Phil Robertson as saying the law is designed "specifically to put Internet companies like Facebook in a headlock to comply with these rights-abusing edicts", among other things.

Singapore's Ambassador to the United States Ashok Kumar Mirpuri subsequently wrote a letter to the Post to rebut its article, which the newspaper ran parts of.

On Monday, an official from the Ministry of Communications and Information sent a letter to Mr Robertson reiterating the Government's offer to debate Pofma with him at any university forum in Singapore and livestream the exchange on Facebook.

The letter also reiterated how Human Rights Watch had been invited to appear before the Parliamentary Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods last year.

It had originally accepted the invitation but declined after being told it would also be questioned about a report issued in December 2017, which stated that the Singapore Government was suppressing freedom of expression.

The organisation was offered eight alternative dates and the option of speaking via video-conference but repeatedly came up with excuses to decline, the official said.

Mr Robertson could not be reached by The Straits Times for comment.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/spores-envoy-to-uk-rebuts-economist-article-on-pofma