Worse Than 1984
Weekly column written for Singapore Unbound newsletter. Sign up here.
The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act tabled in Singapore's Parliament on Monday threatens to restrict free speech in the country even further. It effectively gives any Minister the power to decide what is fact and to demand corrections or removals of statements that he deems to be against the public interest. If passed, the Act will not just create a Ministry of Truth, so ironically named in George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984, but will turn all agents of the Singapore government into Ministries of Truth.
The best commentary that I have read on the bill so far is written by media professor Cherian George. Here I will just highlight one provision of the bill that indicates its wide-ranging scope: its extra-territoriality. Section 7.1 states that "A person must not do any act in or outside Singapore [my emphasis] 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... (vi) diminish public confidence in... the exercise of any power by... a part of the Government, an Organ of State or a statutory board." The more liberal regime for free expression in many other countries is no protection against the Singapore government. Even though Singapore Unbound's public statements and newsletter columns are penned in the USA, because they are read by you readers in Singapore, they will come within the ambit of the law.
It is vital to remember here that any Singapore Minister has the power to decide whether a statement is factual or not. The person so charged to remove or correct his statement may appeal to the courts (a long and costly process), but the Minister himself does not have to apply to the courts to issue a Stop Communication directive. If the person charged refuses to remove or correct his statement, he is liable to a fine not exceeding $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.
Given the government's record for stifling speech, it is hard not to regard as anything but disingenuous the Law Minister's assurances that the proposed law is not meant to restrict expression. Their past actions speak for their present intent. Since the People's Action Party holds the majority in Parliament, the bill is sure to pass. This latest attempt to rule by authoritarian law reminds us that it is politically necessary to have a strong and vocal opposition in Parliament. For now, a vote is still an opinion, and not a fact.
Jee Leong Koh
April 4, 2019
The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act tabled in Singapore's Parliament on Monday threatens to restrict free speech in the country even further. It effectively gives any Minister the power to decide what is fact and to demand corrections or removals of statements that he deems to be against the public interest. If passed, the Act will not just create a Ministry of Truth, so ironically named in George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984, but will turn all agents of the Singapore government into Ministries of Truth.
The best commentary that I have read on the bill so far is written by media professor Cherian George. Here I will just highlight one provision of the bill that indicates its wide-ranging scope: its extra-territoriality. Section 7.1 states that "A person must not do any act in or outside Singapore [my emphasis] 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... (vi) diminish public confidence in... the exercise of any power by... a part of the Government, an Organ of State or a statutory board." The more liberal regime for free expression in many other countries is no protection against the Singapore government. Even though Singapore Unbound's public statements and newsletter columns are penned in the USA, because they are read by you readers in Singapore, they will come within the ambit of the law.
It is vital to remember here that any Singapore Minister has the power to decide whether a statement is factual or not. The person so charged to remove or correct his statement may appeal to the courts (a long and costly process), but the Minister himself does not have to apply to the courts to issue a Stop Communication directive. If the person charged refuses to remove or correct his statement, he is liable to a fine not exceeding $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.
Given the government's record for stifling speech, it is hard not to regard as anything but disingenuous the Law Minister's assurances that the proposed law is not meant to restrict expression. Their past actions speak for their present intent. Since the People's Action Party holds the majority in Parliament, the bill is sure to pass. This latest attempt to rule by authoritarian law reminds us that it is politically necessary to have a strong and vocal opposition in Parliament. For now, a vote is still an opinion, and not a fact.
Jee Leong Koh
April 4, 2019
Comments