[ad_1]
“FACEBOOK IS LEGALLY bound to tell you that the Singapore government says this message contains false information, “reads the message, which links to a government website. He appeared on November 30 on an article published by the States Times Review, a blog that is delighted to hate Singaporean authorities. The post alleged that the country’s elections are rigged and that the next one could “eventually transform Singapore into a Christian state”.
The idea that the ruling People’s Action Party is trying to turn Singapore into a theocracy is absurd, if not “scurrilous”, as the government has said. (The claim that it fakes the elections is more defensible, even if it does not do so by stuffing the ballot boxes, but by making life difficult for its detractors and by threatening the harmful consequences for the regions which vote for the opposition. She has won all general elections in the past 60 years.)
The government, ruling the publication false, asked its founder, who lives in Australia, to publish a notice of correction under the law entitled Prevention from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), which came into effect in October. He declined, noting that the Australian authorities had not asked him to withdraw anything, but thanked the Singaporean government for boosting traffic to its site. The officials were luckier with Facebook, which made the notice visible to Singapore users. The Times Times Review website is blocked in Singapore, so Facebook is its primary means of reaching people.
The episode was not POFMAIs the only release in recent weeks. Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat, who is expected to become the next prime minister, has decided to invoke him against an obscure opposition politician, Brad Bowyer, who questioned the independence and investment of Singapore sovereign wealth funds. Mr. Bowyer’s post did indeed contain errors, which the authorities took up. But his main claim – that government investments were not as well managed as they could be – is clearly a subjective question.
The hubbub on the two orders relates more to the display of POFMAPowers than the details of the posts themselves. The law seeks “to prevent electronic communication in Singapore of false statements of fact” and “to suppress support and counteract the effects of such communication”, among others. It allows any Minister, when he declares a particular declaration to be false, to order its deletion or correction. A special POFMA The office advises ministers on the best course of action. It also offers codes of good practice to digital platforms.
The accused can only go to the High Court after the minister in question has dismissed an appeal (which costs approximately $ 150). The court can then decide whether the original declaration was actually misleading. Those convicted of ignoring correction orders or deliberately spreading lies face criminal sanctions, including prison terms of up to ten years, fines of 100,000 Singaporean dollars ($ 73,000) or both. Social media companies face fines of up to $ 1 million.
Human rights groups, one UN The Special Rapporteur and a group of technology companies have all opposed POFMA. Its wide reach – from private group messages to online videos and beyond – is of particular concern. And it joins a host of other laws that already keep critics at bay. The country’s constitution limits freedom of expression with “any restrictions it deems necessary or appropriate.” The Contempt of Justice Act was used to target the strange journalist, designer or blogger. Defamation cases disturb other outspoken figures. Singapore sits below Russia, Afghanistan and many of its own neighbors in the latest press freedom rankings by Reporters Without Borders, a watchdog.
Sending fabricated messages was already a crime under the Telecommunications Act. But POFMA offers the government the means to respond to criticisms it considers unreasonable more quickly and (slightly) less harshly. Facebook said it hoped the law would not interfere with freedom of expression. To say that it has already attracted POFMA ordered. ■
This article appeared in the Asia section of the print edition under the title “False Witness”
[ad_2]
