Skip to main content

Government officials will never ask you to transfer money or disclose bank log-in details over a phone call.

Call the 24/7 ScamShield Helpline at 1799 if you are unsure if something is a scam. For more information on how to protect yourself against scams, please visit the ScamShield website.

Geneva UN
Articles

Singapore's reply to the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression

5 July 2019

This article has been migrated from an earlier version of the site and may display formatting inconsistencies.


21 June 2019


Mr David Kaye

Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression



Dear Mr Kaye,


  1. I refer to your letter dated 24 April 2019 on Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill (“the Bill”). Correction of Errors 

  2. Your concerns about the Bill are based on several errors in understanding it. I enclose at Annex A the opening speech of Minister for Law, Mr K Shanmugam, at the Bill’s Second Reading in Parliament, which provides an overview of key features of the Bill and its impetus. I address your specific concerns below. 

  3. First, a central misconception is that judicial oversight is limited, and the process of appealing to the courts is designed to deter meaningful recourse.   The Minister for Law stated in his speech at the Second Reading of the Bill, that the process of bringing a statutory appeal to court will be fast. He also set out the specific timelines, which will be prescribed in the Bill’s subsidiary legislation. The case can be heard in court as early as 9 days after a challenge is initiated to the Minister.  

  4. There are important considerations behind why the Bill adopts a two-stage mechanism, involving swift action first through a Minister’s direction, followed by a statutory court appeal (see Annex A). 

  5. Second, your concerns about the definition of a “false statement of fact” in the Bill appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the Bill.    

  6. Third, it is completely wrong to state that the Bill authorises Ministers to “adjudicate the criminality of statements” and that “statements are criminalised” by Minister’s directions. This is a surprising interpretation of the Bill. As with other administrative directions that already exist in law, the directions under the Bill involve no finding of criminal liability on any person. They simply require a correction to be put up, or, in some more serious cases, a falsehood to be taken down. They do not make statements illegal. Your assertion that directions “effectively reverse” the presumption of innocence is a non-starter. 

  7. Fourth, you expressed concern that the penalties that may be imposed on internet intermediaries will make them feel pressured to err on the side of caution, and unduly restrict lawful expression. This does not make sense.The Bill does not require internet intermediaries to make judgments on what content is false or what to act against. They only need to comply with a Minister’s direction to them to put up a correction or remove a falsehood; the direction will identify the false statement for them. 

  8. I note that you have levelled the same criticism against Germany’s Network Enforcement Act, which places the onus on intermediaries to assess (at first instance) whether a statement is illegal. The criticism seems to have been repeated against this Bill, despite its material differences with the German law. Background to the Bill 

  9. The Bill is Singapore’s response to a real and serious problem. Around the world, online falsehoods have distorted political processes, eroded trust in public institutions, exacerbated societal tensions, and threatened the very foundations of democracy. Singapore is not immune. 

  10. The Bill was drafted after an extensive process of study and public debate.    

  11. The Select Committee recommended a multi-pronged approach, and set out 22 specific recommendations that formed a suite of non-legislative and legislative measures. The Government has been implementing the recommendations, including through concerted efforts to expand public education. 

  12. This Bill is one part of the Government’s multi-pronged approach to combat online falsehoods. It implements the Select Committee’s recommendations on what legislation should achieve, including the ability to break virality in a matter of hours, and to ensure calibration in government intervention. 

  13. Notably, the Bill provides for the novel ability to ensure that corrections can catch up with falsehoods in the online world. This is done through corrections directions that do not require the falsehood to be taken down. This approach is in line with the psychological research on remedying the influence of falsehoods, and the ample studies showing that corrections seldom outrace falsehoods online. 

  14. I hope that you will not overlook the seriousness of this effort to ensure Singapore has the tools we need to effectively counter a real and serious problem.Singapore’s approach may not conform to certain ideological preferences, but our laws are for us to make, as it is the interests of our society at stake.



Yours sincerely




FOO KOK JWEE

AMBASSADOR AND PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE


Back to top