Pritam Singh
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, I hear what the Minister has said. I am also sure the Minister has understood where the Workers' Party Members of Parliament are coming from. And I also would like to add that as the Opposition, we come to this House to scrutinise Bills and it is our duty to ask those questions.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I am empathetic to the arguments of efficiency and ensuring that patients can see a polyclinic doctor or consultation as quickly as possible. I understand the Senior Minister of State mentioned it is important to try and make a make an appointment so that your waiting time is within a certain period.”
“Thank you, Speaker. Just a question for the Minister of State. Does the Ministry capture the total amount of monies recovered from Singaporeans who are victims of scams?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a point of order. I believe the Senior Minister of State, in his wrapping-up speech, referred to a speech made by a Member who did not deliver a speech in Parliament on the Bill, that is, hon Member Ms Mariam Jaafar. I would just like to confirm whether that is as per the Standing Orders of Parliament.”
“Much obliged, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the Sitting on 7 April 2026, I rose to seek a clarification on the joint Ministerial Statement on the situation in the Middle East.”
“Thank you, Speaker. The Minister of State mentioned meaningful impact a few times, so I will give an example. The KPI in the Budget Book, "the percentage of patients who waited less than or at least 100 minutes for consultations at polyclinics", for example, for each fiscal year, 2023, 2024, 2025 – the number is 99%.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,762 lines we hold for Pritam Singh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 23 of 36.
“The fact is that exemptions are not out of the question in freedom of information legislation. Of course, there is also the issue of questions that can be answered and cannot be answered and the Government can just put down its reasons why certain matters cannot be answered. So, I do apologise for having to go through this very quickly but I thought it deserves a reply.”
“Yes, yes, I am rounding up, Mr Deputy Speaker.”
“I saw another side of FOI, granted only four weeks. The Minister raised some examples about Ferrero Roche, consumption of Ferrero Roche Rock chocolates, toilet paper. But we also have to remember that some of these requests actually uncovered issues like the expenses scandal, the Member of Parliament's expenses' scandal in the UK. So, while there is certainly a case to be made for some ridiculous requests which, of course, under most right to Information Acts can be dealt with separately and —”
“Sure. But I think there are certain things which I can probably cover at least in a cursory, or slightly more than a cursory manner. If we look at FOI from memory, I think there are about 110 countries in the world that have some sort of FOI regime. The Minister is right. The regime must work for Singapore. But out of these 110 countries, about 80 of them only introduced an FOI or FOI-like legislation over the last 30 years. In some cases, there have been successes, in some others there have not. But the FOI cannot be seen as a silver bullet. In the same way, POFMA is not a silver bullet. But it is one part of an ecosystem, one part of citizen engagement which, I submit, is actually very important and I think it helps in this building of trust and not just from one government to another. It also raises the standard of conversation amongst members of the public. That is my position on it. When I was actually studying for my juris doctor postgraduate programme in SMU, there was a requirement for students to undertake 80 years of—sorry, I beg your pardon, 80 hours – thank you, Prime Minister – that is too long [Laughter] – 80 hours of internship experience. So, I got in touch with some friends and I did an internship at the Central Information Commission in New Delhi. This Commission actually looks into the right to information issues. That experience, yes, it was only for a short three to four weeks, but it was very revealing because you had ordinary members of the public actually coming up with not ridiculous requests but serious requests about why certain commitments made by the government were not followed through or what happened in certain cases where certain information was actually supposed to be given but was not given.”
“We can, again, like I said, reasonable people can have different views about which words to use, but one can also argue that under POFMA, the Government's powers are actually sharpened. The other point – it is unfortunate that I did not come to this House prepared to debate the freedom of information (FOI) and the points that the Minister made about freedom of information. But I will try to provide some responses from—”
“I would like to first thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply to some of the queries that were put out. I think, firstly, in general, we had an exchange about the proposal that the WP put forward with the Courts as the first arbiter. The key issue for us was, as I said in my speech, to balance the urgency of moving against an online falsehood and having a decision-maker that is more acceptable than an unchecked Executive. That is the position. The second point, I think the Minister raised it a few times in his speech and I believe the remark was also made by hon Member Mr Seah Kian Peng about the word "narrow", that the POFMA Bill actually narrows the Government's powers. Well, I can understand why that word was used. But I think very reasonable people, both inside and outside this House, may suggest that the word ought to be "sharpened". If we look at Prof Goh Yihan's submission to the SC – and this is public information, it is a matter of Parliamentary record – paragraph 27: "I set out below a summary of the discussion above...," he goes. He looked at the Telecommunications Act, Penal Act, Sedition Act, ISA. Do they all cover online falsehoods? "Yes", they do. Under "Additional requirements", in the case of the Telecommunications Act – Knowledge of falsity and fabrication, does it deal with the falsehoods itself? – "No." Under the Penal Code, knowingly spread falsehoods that concern race and religion, does it deal with the falsehood itself? – the answer was "No". ISA – covers only falsehoods likely to cause public alarm, does it deal with the falsehood itself? – "No." But under POFMA, these matters are actually resolved because the powers are scoped.”
“I thank the Minister for that. I think it requires a caveat, of course. A caveat is important and that caveat is that there has to be capacity for a duty judge to be available at that time. That is the caveat.”
“On the first point, Minister, it is no question of an embarrassment for me. I think I am quite clear as to what I think is the appropriate position taken by the SC report. Decision-making – it was not explicitly stated which would be the entity and I think I want to leave it at that. The second point I think is an important one. The first question was in a matter of hours. And I think the Minister makes a fair point in the case of the duty judge. If, indeed, there is only one person, then it really comes down to a question of whether that should be increased. Should we have more duty judges? Again, it is an arguable point. The Minister may say look it is going to be quite difficult to execute in practice. I happen to think that, again, depending on how urgent the problem is, how bad the situation is, that can be dealt with. The second point about service. It is an important point because it deals with issues of natural justice. It is an important point. Again, we look at POHA and interim orders, for example. Clause 16 says: "an interim order takes effect in respect of the respondent", and this is an individual or company, "when the order is served on the respondent in such a manner as may be prescribed", but critically, (b) says, "where the Court dispenses with the service of the order, when the service of the order or the respondent is dispensed with by the Court, or at such a later time as the Court may specify". Again, it suggests to me that the regime can be dealt with to deal with the problem of a falsehood provided that prima facie threshold is met. Serious problem. Serious falsehood put out there; and the Court may decide, "Look, I think service is of a second order importance right now, we need to deal with this problem but parties have to come back before me".”
“Targeted Correction order, this is clause 21, Part 4 of the Bill, is issued to the Internet intermediary that provided the Internet intermediary service by means of which the subject material has been or is being communicated in Singapore requiring it to communicate by means of that service to all end users in Singapore. And then, it goes on to say a statement, a specified statement and so forth. We look at the identical option under POHA, for individual or company, there is a requisite standard to meet for an interim order, which is the prima facie standard. Once that standard is met, let us say, by a duty judge, the question of hearing the arguments can be dealt with later. And I think this is the point which suggests to me that there is some scope for the Courts to deal with the urgent issue that the Government wants to resolve, at least in the interim, and then when it comes to the proper hearing, the Government can make its case in full and the aggrieved party will have the time to respond.”
“The SC report, we went through several revisions of it. I was part of the team that looked at Recommendation 12 closely. I do not want to share what the deliberations of that small group were because those are confidential and I do not intend to abuse my Parliamentary privilege for that purpose, but I have those emails. I do not intend to read from them. But very clearly, my decision to remove the Executive as the decision-maker was made quite clear in the original draft. And I think that is the point. The point is, I believe the SC had to put forth an approach on how we are going to deal with the problem, but as to the specific modality, that was something for Parliament to decide. So, that is dealing with the SC's phraseology and how the issue was put out. Let me deal with the second set of issues that the Minister spoke about, which was about speed. Certainly, there appears to be two regimes when the Government needs to apply for an interim order to move quickly against either an individual or a company; in this case, let us say, a tech company like Facebook. Yes, I would agree that if we came to a tech company I would expect them to challenge what the Government wants to do. But in that sort of situation, the fact is POFMA gives advantage to the Government. The prima facie case is something that the judge can rule upon as a matter of course. That means, the order is given but as to the arguments that have to be dealt with later, these can be dealt with accordingly. Let me give an example if the Minister could just bear with me.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think a number of points have been made by the Minister. First, it has to do with my position on the Committee and the recommendations per se. I do not think it is an attempt to try and wriggle around the words, "The Government should act swiftly. Legislation should be provided to the Government". POFMA is the legislation that the Government has put forward. I think the issue is really response time. I think that is the key pivot that the Government and the WP have —”
“Mr Speaker, it is not my understanding that in cases of online falsehoods targeted against individuals and companies POHA is going to present a slow outlet for these individuals. That process also can be quick. If not, there would be no provisions for interim orders. So, I disagree with this idea – unless I have gotten POHA completely wrong – that individuals and companies cannot expect a fast, expeditious solution to falsehoods that have been carried against them. So, again, the WP will stick to the point and we believe that the Courts actually can respond to online falsehoods speedily.”
“Mr Speaker, the point that I think Mr Foo is making is that the Court needs to be bulked up. Yesterday, during the POHA Second Reading, we were informed that the process of applying against online falsehoods for individuals and companies would be a quick one and separate Courts have been set up for this for Singaporeans, for individuals and for companies. And it is in that context that I believe that a speedy response is possible through the Courts because those Courts are going to be set up by virtue of the amendments we passed under POHA.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thought I have made that clear, but I will repeat myself. Obviously, there will be instances where the response has to be dealt with within hours. But the question is whether the SC report commits itself to the Executive being the decision-maker. This is the key point. The SC report does not commit to the Executive as the decision-maker. And I think the point that needs to be re-emphasised is that there is no need for me to take my name away from any conclusion of the SC report, I stand by it. But a speedy response can be foreseen, can be fathomable through another decision-maker, namely, the Judiciary.”
“But it does not contradict my signing off from the SC Report on an option to ensure that the response is a speedy one because I believe that the Courts can respond speedily and that the expedited timeline or an appropriate interim order can deal with the prima facie falsehood. That means that the case the Government brings to the Court, the PHC, is this a prima facie falsehood? Questions of having to sieve through evidence really turn on how real the issue is, and the prima facie nature of the evidentiary threshold should deal with the issue of speed.”
“Mr Speaker, I was out of the Chamber when Mr Cedric Foo made his speech, but I have noted Mr Cedric Foo's comments. Just to be sure so that I do not misquote him, I understand his two main issues were that I was part of the SC and the SC's recommendation was that quick action was important – response time being within a matter of hours. That was the first. The second was that yesterday, during the POHA debate, I asked whether Courts will be fast enough. I will deal with the second issue first because that is more pertinent. We found out during the POHA debate yesterday that when there is an issue affecting an individual or a company, there is an easy form to fill out – or at least this is what the Minister assured us – for individuals or companies to take action to deal with online falsehoods quickly. And let us remember, virality is not an issue that only affects the Government. It also affects individuals and companies. And we know that there was a reference made to making that process more straightforward, streamlined, easier. I used an example during the POHA debate about a matter that was brought up by Minister Shanmugam on 13 April in a Channel NewsAsia interview where he said that you can have a situation of a company, an online falsehood has been made against it, and in four or five hours, billions of dollars could be lost. If individuals are expected to rely on the Harassment Courts for quick remedies, it is my position that we can expect a speedy response to come from the Courts. Of course, it would mean raising the Courts to be able to deal with those problems. That I can concede, that you will need Courts to respond quickly.”
“Mr Speaker, I would like to thank hon Member Mr Vikram Nair for his comments. Just to follow up on his point that the volume of applications may upset the process, and efficiency could be at risk. When we passed the Protection from Harassment (Amendment) (POHA) Bill yesterday, this House envisaged the setting up of the Protection from Harassment Courts (PHCs). The remedies that are provided for under POFMA are also available to ordinary Singaporeans, companies in Singapore, thousands of companies under POHA. I would have imagined that the Court actually would be prepared for this volume of applications that could be made to it. Even more so, as we found out yesterday the application process is quite simple. My point is, would it not be foreseeable that actually the Courts could take on that additional task of looking through applications whether it comes from an individual, a company or the Government?”
“I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for his reply. My question pertains to the comments made by the Minister with regard to water and, particularly, the right of Singapore under the 1962 Water Agreement to draw up to 250 mgd from Johor. The Minister said that, in future, it would appear that there would be a risk that we would not be able to draw that amount, given that Johor's own needs are likely to grow. The development sounds worrying for Singapore. Can I ask the Minister, prior to today, for example, have there been situations where we have not been able to draw the 250 mgd, apart from those incidents where the waterworks had to be shut down?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to clarify a point made by the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza. I am quoting from the Executive Summary of the report of the SC on Deliberate Online Falsehoods and I want to deal with the point he made about riots and having to wait for a Court order. I want to suggest to him that sometimes Executive action in itself can be problematic and I am going to quote from this example. Para 24, page 5, "Falsehoods that undermine trust in public institutions can impede constructive policymaking and the ability to respond to crisis and threats effectively. For example, when German police debunked a false claim that immigrants have raped a girl, they were falsely accused of covering up crimes committed by immigrants. This contributed to street protests." I can understand the Member's view that urgent action is important. But Executive action, in itself, may not always be the solution that will solve the problem. I think it is important to understand that there could be other solutions that may inevitably work, that members of the public could be persuaded by other forms of action like a Court order.”
“Mr Speaker, I can accept the Senior Minister of State's position on that. But philosophically, I have a different view as to who the appropriate decision-maker is. And it is my belief that we should try and see how the Courts can deal with these falsehoods as quickly as possible.”
“Yes. The point I think that needs to be made here with regard to the use of the Courts is that, with an expedited procedure – which the Senior Minister of State also confirmed under POHA, simple claims form – there is room, in my belief, that the Courts can still represent a decision-making authority which can act speedily.”
“Mr Speaker, I can confirm that there was an additional explanation to that initial comment.”
“On its part, the Executive will act in some cases of falsehoods and, in other cases, it will not. In both scenarios, questions will be asked why the Executive acted as such. Suspicious will be raised and perceptions could be formed. Politicisation would be inevitable. But it is precisely because of these very reasons that the decision-maker must be perceived to be free of conflict in deciding on matters concerning online falsehoods and manipulation as defined by the Bill.”
“In such a scenario, urgent interim orders can be ordered by duty judges available at short notices to quickly deal with false content that threatens to subvert the election process. The difference in the time taken between an Executive direction and an Expedited Order through the judicial process in such cases may not be significant. Here, I think it is helpful for me to come back to the clarification from Senior Minister of State Edwin Tong that in the case of an online falsehood that threatens to go viral in four to five hours, if I heard the Senior Minister of State correctly, the answer was, the Courts can try to deal with that situation. Now, that suggests that there is some room for the Courts to deal with issues speedily. On the other hand, an aggrieved party is also free to apply to the Courts to challenge, vary, suspend or cancel a Court's decision. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, the Workers’ Party is of the view that, as a matter of principle, the Courts should be the decision-makers at the very first instance on matters that pertain to deliberate online falsehoods and manipulation. The fact that the Bill would have to regulate what some reasonable people may well interpret as an expression of free speech under Article 14 of our Constitution, must give us reason to pause and question whether the Courts are better placed to exercise judgement on this point. The fake news domain is already a very controversial one. Some players are sophisticated. Others will fake innocence when rightly called out. Some misleading statements will be completely political in nature, aimed at lowering the esteem and political prospects of election candidates. And there would conceivably be a whole litany of other scenarios and circumstances to consider.”
“To this end, Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill have close similarities with the remedies for online falsehoods this House passed earlier, under Part 3 of POHA. The new sections 15 and 16 of POHA envisage identical remedies, such as stop publication and correction orders that can be invoked by companies and individuals in Singapore, in addition to orders sought against tech companies upon application to the Harassment Courts. Mr Speaker, if ordinary Singaporeans and corporates registered here are expected to apply to the Courts to deal with online falsehoods and misleading statements made against them, it would be sensible for the Executive to surrender itself to such a process as well, particularly since the meaning of a falsehood is identical under both POHA and the Bill. The Harassment Courts, dealing with all online falsehood applications, from individuals and companies and the Government, would also result in a consistent application of the law in matters involving online falsehoods and misleading information, resulting in not only greater clarity for all parties but would help in public education on permissible and impermissible forms of expression. In cases of sensitive matters involving national security, in-camera applications can be made by the Executive to the Harassment Courts. To this end, I believe there is scope to introduce processes involving duty judges to deal with an urgent application from the Government speedily or at very short notice. Likewise, there can be times where there is a heightened risk of false or misleading postings online. This can happen during elections, for example.”
“The test in deciding whether the words are fact or comment is an objective one – namely, whether an ordinary, reasonable reader on reading the whole article would understand the words as comment[s] or [as] statements of fact." However, in acknowledging that deciding between an opinion or a comment and a fact can be a difficult exercise, to say nothing of misleading statements, it would follow that the application of a nonetheless objective test in some cases may likewise not be a straightforward exercise, especially in cases of misleading statements where politically-charged decisions need to be made. Mr Speaker, it would appear that a key factor in the Government’s selection of the Executive as opposed to the Courts as the decision-maker on matters concerning falsehoods and manipulation turned on how quickly a false statement of fact can be corrected, removed and, generally, dealt with speedily. If so, it would be important to put this factor into perspective and consider alternatives that seek to balance the urgency of moving against an online falsehood and having a decision-maker that is more acceptable than an unchecked Executive. Firstly, under civil law, quick remedies are available where service and the presence of a respondent in Court can be dispensed with. And to this end, the ex-parte process is not an unusual judicial remedy to deal with certain time-sensitive applications. But one need not reinvent the wheel here. The prospect of interim orders made in favour of the Government in the face of a prima facie falsehood, just like how an individual or company would apply under POHA, can possibly also operate to deal with online falsehoods and manipulation quickly and effectively.”
“Furthermore, an appeal to the High Court for a Part 3 direction under clause 17 does not give leeway to the Court to order what is just and equitable in the circumstances, powers which a genuinely neutral appellant authority must ordinarily host. Instead, POFMA limits the grounds for appeal to the Courts to three circumstances as listed in clause 17. While Judicial Review nonetheless applies, it is a high bar as Judicial Review does not cover the merits of the Minister's decision, but only its legality. More fundamentally, the Executive will have to carefully assess and determine what constitutes a statement of fact, something which is not necessarily a straightforward exercise. What is not stated in unequivocal terms by the Government is that the line between satire, opinion or comment, and what the Executive may deem to be a false or misleading statement of fact in the public interpretation, can be highly subjective. This point was raised in the Court of Appeal judgement in Review Publishing vs Lee Hsien Loong quoting Evans on Defamation, albeit in the context of the defence of fair comment, where it was said, and I quote: "It will often be very difficult to decide whether a given statement expresses a comment or [an] opinion, or by contrast constitutes an allegation of fact. The same words published in one context may be statement[s] of fact, yet in another may be comment[s]. Therefore, whether this element of the defence is established is one of fact, is dependent upon the nature of the imputation conveyed, and the context and circumstances in which it is published.”
“Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam was also quoted by the media as being doubtful about whether the individuals arrested in 1988 were communists. These are not the opinions of lay members of the public who have access to all the relevant information and individuals involved to make a decision or clarify their understanding of events. It would appear that reasonable people even within the Executive would opine very differently on some matters, but yet, each Minister can invoke the powers under this Bill, even if a fellow Minister may not be in agreement. To avoid such inconsistency, would the Courts not represent a more neutral, transparent, accountable and uncontroversial platform to rule on such matters? The Government has argued that under the proposed Bill, the Courts are the final arbiter of truth and that an uncomplicated appeals process to the Courts would address the concerns of aggrieved parties. Even so, Sir, the judicial culture in Singapore is highly non-interventionist. The Courts cannot overrule Executive directions lawfully undertaken, pursuant to legislative powers passed by this House. False statements, which can include misleading ones, nonetheless, require the independence and neutrality of the reasonable man who, in this case, will not be a Judge in the first instance, but a People's Action Party Minister. It is open to question whether a traditionally non-interventionist judiciary will challenge what the Executive deems to be reasonable under the Bill, particularly in the face of broad definitions like "misleading statements" and the "public interest".”
“" Sir, if this example, rooted in a different perspective of how the Public Order Act is applied, outlines the contours of what the threshold of undermining public confidence as defined in the Bill is, then the irresistible conclusion must be that the public interest limb detailed in clause 10 can potentially be very easily invoked by the Executive. Such a conclusion would explain why even moderate Singaporeans have raised concerns about the prospect of POFMA having a chilling effect on the public discourse at the hands of a very easily triggered Executive. Now, if an exceedingly low threshold to trigger Part 3 was not enough, the explanatory statement of the Bill at page 69 clarifies that the six scenarios of what would qualify as the public interest are actually only the tip of the iceberg. I quote the explanatory statement: "Clause 4 gives a non-exhaustive" and let me stress this again "a non-exhaustive definition of the expression ‘in the public interest’, which is part of the condition for making the various directions under this Bill." So, in fact, what this Bill is really saying is that clause 4 is merely a precursor to another potentially unknown list of definitions of what could be in the public interest. Mr Speaker, we have had episodes in our history where decisions made by the Executive by virtue of powers legally exercised were questioned with scepticism by members of the public, including even members of the Executive, years after the event. Operation Spectrum or the Marxist conspiracy of 1988 is a good example. It is public knowledge that a senior Cabinet member left the Executive after expressing doubts about the Executive’s exercise of powers under the Internal Security Act.”
“In the public understanding, this clause gives broad latitude to the Executive to clamp down on what it deems to be even misleading statements, which may not be false per se. In fact, it is fathomable that some statements the Executive may interpret as offending are likely to exist along the misinformation and disinformation spectrum eloquently laid out by Claire Wardle in her submission to the SC. Some statements would exist in the middle of the spectrum where reasonable people would disagree about whether such an offending statement is, indeed, prima facie false or misleading and against the public interest. In addition to clause 2, clause 10 legislates that any Minister can issue a whole range of directions if that Minister is of the opinion that it would be in the public interest to issue it. Clause 4 lists six broad considerations of what would be in the public interest. Reference is also made to a diminution of public confidence in the Government, again a term that I would argue can turn on how thin-skinned or thick-skinned the Government of the day is – be it today or in the future. For example, some weeks ago, some critics of what many reasonable people would consider, correctly or incorrectly, to be a pro-Government influencer Nas Daily, were accused of seeking to undermine confidence in public institutions. These critics alleged double standards on the part of the Executive in allowing the applicant, a foreigner, to mark his presence in Singapore because of a different interpretation of what the Executive would deem to be a cause-based event. This led the Singapore Police Force to release a statement which framed the allegations of the critics as, I quote "a malicious attempt to undermine confidence in public institutions.”
“Here, the Committee's Report deliberated on which entity should become the decision-maker in determining what is a falsehood. In fact, the SC outlined three other alternatives. First was the Courts; the second was the establishment of an independent body or ombudsman that would issue directions; and third, the Report considered the prospects of social media companies themselves acting upon notification of falsehoods by users with a recourse to the Courts. At paragraph 364 of the SC Report, the Committee acknowledged the views of some representors, including those who were sceptical of the Executive as the decision-maker. Ironically, much of the concern that has been expressed in the public realm since the First Reading of the Bill was actually foreseen by the SC Report. At para 364(b)(iii) it read, and I quote, "Representors raised concerns about whether Executive action would be credible. There was concern that Executive action could feed fears over the abuse of power. It was also pointed out that Executive directions would not be able to deal with falsehoods spread by the Executive." In contrast, the proposal to have the Courts as the decision-maker did not illicit any significant apprehensions. To reinforce this point, it is apparent that the Bill gives remarkable leeway to the Executive to define what a falsehood is, especially since the Government has said that it will not act on all falsehoods. In fact, clause 2(2) legislates that a statement can be deemed by the Government to be false if it is misleading – whether wholly or in part, and whether on its own or in the context in which it appears.”
“In comments to The Straits Times last Saturday about whether the Bill could have the unintended effect of self-censorship, the Minister said, "We need to educate the public that the Bill applies only to people putting out falsehoods and that various Ministries like the Education Ministry is working on public education in this area." Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party opposes this Bill. All the Workers’ Party Members will speak against it and our objections centre primarily around a fundamental matter. First, we do not agree that the Executive should be the initial decision-maker on matters surrounding false statements of fact. Secondly, we do not support the uncertainty over the circumstances under which the Executive can move on matters that rest purely on a Minister’s subjective opinion that a false or misleading statement is nonetheless not in the public interest, for which a correction or takedown order, amongst other directions, is necessary. While the Government must legitimately be able to apply to shut down malicious actors, a Court order should legitimise this action that needs to be undertaken. In fact, the SC Report noted representors raising the prospects of the Executive itself spreading falsehoods. This should give all Singaporeans reason to pause and consider whether the Bill that will be passed with the Executive as the decision-maker is truly in the best interests of Singapore. In fact, it is my case that POFMA can easily become a proverbial Damocles sword that would hang over members of the public who do not support the Government’s narrative or toe the Government line. Sir, it would be useful for the House to revisit Recommendation 12 of the SC Report and the analysis that precedes it.”
“In deciding that the Executive will determine what is an actionable falsehood and what is not, there has been significant disquiet even amongst moderate and politically disengaged members of the public about the potentially wide remit of powers extended to Ministers through this Bill. Sir, the public routinely get involved in political discussions both online and offline on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of policies, the appropriateness of Executive action, the lack of information on matters of public interest, such as the size of our Reserves, amongst many others. By their very nature, such discussions are also limited and even exaggerated sometimes because of a lack of disclosure by the Government or the absence of any freedom of information regime to equalise the asymmetry between the information and facts available to the Executive as compared to the general public. Given our unique laws that govern how the press operates in Singapore, the infamously local phrase, "out-of-bound", or OB markers, and our unique political culture steeped in a history of hauling up members of the public and politicians who utter defamatory statements to Court to be slapped with punitive damages, there is a genuine sense amongst the public that this Bill can be easily abused in the wrong hands. It does not help that the public do not appear to be clear on what can be said and what cannot be said. For example, how does a false statement of fact interplay with an opinion or a comment? I believe the Minister also recognises this point.”
“Bots and the existence of enterprises that charge for services to manipulate the public discourse, subvert democracy and elections and weaponise information, have become a feature of the online world, with many examples highlighted to the SC. Over the last few years, Western powers have identified Russia’s employment of hybrid warfare, combining both a hostile information campaign employing both misinformation to disinformation before and during the onset of hostilities as the norm for future conflicts. However, it would be a mistake to suggest only Russian involvement. The arc of history has proved that many countries, even those friendly to Singapore, are no less seasoned at subversion and subverting even democratic forces in other countries. And it would be naive to assume that the employment of misinformation and disinformation is not a permanent aspect of the world we live in today, much of which is lived online. Clearly, there is a problem at hand. The question is: how should Singapore deal with the problem? The Government has proposed the Protection from Falsehoods Online and Manipulation Bill before the House today, what I will henceforth refer to as POFMA. After spending a long time deliberating the nature of the problem, including forming a SC of Parliament, the Government decided not to consult the public on how it preferred to tackle the problem. To this end, a lot of the public apprehension over the Bill can be located in its choice of the decision-making authority on matters concerning online falsehoods – the Executive. The remedies available under the Bill are virtually identical to those individuals and companies can rely on under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA).”
“Sir, as the SC Report on Deliberate Online Falsehoods observes, the phenomenon of fake news is nothing new. Since time immemorial, a battle for hearts and minds has taken place among people who host different views and seek to persuade others of their beliefs and causes; among politicians at the hustings; among companies through elaborate public relations exercises and spin; and between countries, most vividly played out during the Cold War between the US and the former Soviet Union, each forwarding the superiority of the capitalist and communist systems respectively. What we refer to as fake news today, with misinformation and disinformation at its core, has been the domain of propaganda in the days before the Internet. As framed by Claire Wardle in her submission to the SC, at one end of the spectrum, misinformation has been a method of choice of individuals, politicians, companies and countries. Here, misleading content, false context and imposter content dominate. At the other end is aggressive disinformation with falsified or manipulated content which seeks to deceive an audience or a reader. This is usually the domain of sophisticated state and well-endowed non-state actors. The advent of the Internet and, more recently, social media – where communication has been democratised with both positive and negative repercussions – has brought the ease of propagating fake news centrestage. The political economy of social media companies and their algorithms which are skewed at extracting profits, in some cases regardless of the consequences, accentuate the problem.”
“Just to follow up on that earlier example vis-a-vis the misleading statement, I understand what the Senior Minister of State has said about it. The issue is, in the context that I provided, that statement has caused damage to a certain entity. And that entity seeks to prove in Court that the statement actually, in and of itself, is misleading, and because of those circumstances, loss has accrued to the band. Would they be able to rely on POHA?”
“Mr Speaker, I just have one clarification. But before that, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for going through the examples that were raised and providing his clarifications for them. My query is on the definition of a false statement. The example I have used, which the Senior Minister of State referred to as an opinion, went like this. People who listen to black metal music may commit violence in the real world. I can understand that in the context of a false statement, there is the usual objective test which in law and that statement may not qualify as a false statement. But in clause 3, the definition of a false statement includes a misleading statement and that complicates the situation a little bit vis-a-vis whether that is an opinion or whether that is a misleading statement. If it is a misleading statement, then an individual who made that statement potentially could have action taken against him under the Bill, of course, through the civil route. Can the Senior Minister of State please clarify?”
“I look forward to having my clarifications addressed.”
“Would the public interest not be better served in allowing a person to apply for the appropriate order from the PHCs and, in doing so, make their case? I would argue that the prospects of such recourse and the availability of a neutral forum like the Courts, combined with a simple process, would, in itself, act as a deterrent against individuals who seek to retrospectively burnish their reputations or embarrass the Government. To this end, in the event an individual can apply for a stop publication or correction order under the new section 15, but he or she does not, and instead continues to accuse the Government, then an obvious adverse inference can be drawn about what the truth really is. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, in highlighting this example, I am not taking a view about the veracity of facts as presented by Dr Poh or the Government. Because all the relevant information is not publicly accessible, there is no way members of the public can objectively take a view on either side of the story. The Workers' Party has made its position known on matters involving the opening of the archives and a Freedom of Information regime in Parliament before. But these are not matters within the boundaries of this Bill. However, it goes without saying that there exists an asymmetry in information and power between the Government and its citizens. It is my view that allowing the Government to open itself up to scrutiny on matters where it is accused of peddling falsehoods can paradoxically operate to strengthen trust in the Government, particularly in these times where political leaders all around the world find their mandate to rule increasingly questioned by a sceptical public and where political polarisation increasingly appears to be the order of the day.”
“On this point, Mr Speaker, the decision to create an exemption for the Government such that it cannot be sued for perpetuating a falsehood is, in my view, a glaring omission and a lost opportunity at winning the trust of the public. More fundamentally, it does not conform to the principle that the rule of law applies equally to all. To illustrate the point, in late 2014 and 2015, the New Mandala, a publication of the Australian National University, ran a series of exchanges between the former Singapore Ambassador to Australia Mr Burhan Gafoor and former Internal Security Act (ISA) detainee Dr Poh Soo Kai. One aspect of the exchange involved the alleged assistance given by Dr Poh to an injured Communist Party of Malaysia bomber who escaped the premature detonation of an explosive device in a car along Still Road in 1974. Last week, Function 8, a local civil society organisation, put up a video titled "Fake News: Who is the culprit?" on its Facebook page. In it, Dr Poh accused the Government of wrongfully alleging that he rendered assistance to the injured bomber in Masai, Malaysia. Dr Poh's position was that he never went across to Malaysia to render assistance to the injured party, something the Government has accused him of doing. Dr Poh further asserts that this can be proven in his favour through immigration records. By alleging that he did go to Malaysia, Dr Poh then goes on to accuse the Government of peddling a false statement of fact as defined by the Bill. The limitation period of this example notwithstanding, under the Bill, such an individual would have no remedy against a false statement made by the Government, or an allegedly false statement by the Government, I should add.”
“However, the explanatory statement to the Bill at page 71 appears to suggest that costs can be ordered, regardless of what type of remedy is ordered by the Courts. Is there any particular reason why the clause, as drafted, does not order costs against authors or publishers of false statements of fact in cases where the Courts issue orders other than correction orders, such as stop publication orders? In addition, can the Minister share in what circumstances and scenarios would the Court mandate costs against the subject who applied for the order as provided in clause 16CA(c)? Secondly, under clause 3, the Bill has defined the word "entity" to exclude any public agency, and "public agency" is, in turn, defined in the Bill by section 128A(6) of the Evidence Act. What this effectively means is that an individual or company cannot apply to the PHCs in case the Government makes misleading or false statements against them. As a matter of principle, why ought this to be the case? The Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods noted the observations of some representors that governments can also communicate falsehoods or misleading information. There are enough examples of governments around the world through the course of history that have done so. Why should the public not receive protection provided by this Bill against a prospective government or minister that uses his or her powers not just unwisely but maliciously, with a view to seek a remedy from a neutral body like the Courts, the same remedies which the Government can direct against individuals and companies under POFMA?”
“Is such a shorter application hearing timeline within the contemplation of the Bill for individuals or entities who seek very urgent relief, failing which significant damage or losses would inevitably increase with every passing hour? If so, how quickly can the public expect the PHCs to hear an interim application in the case of an online falsehood against an individual or entity? And more generally and equally important, would the remedies provided for false statements in such a scenario necessitate filing a summons and affidavit, as is currently the case, or does the Ministry seek to introduce a quicker and simpler filing procedure akin to a simple form as envisaged for EPOs? Finally, orders relating to false statements of fact. Sir, clause 20 repeals the existing sections 15 and 16 and broadly replaces them with a stop publication order, a correction order, a disabling order, a targeted correction order, a general correction order and various other orders in cases where a prima facie case is made out. These are far-reaching remedies, largely identical to those the Government has sought under POFMA, and they can be imposed upon any individual or entity and applied for by the same. While much of the attention of the public has been focused on POFMA since the First Readings of both Bills, but for the man on the street, POHA will be the law they can avail themselves to, with a view to taking action against other individuals or entities who peddle falsehoods against them, in addition to applications against Internet intermediaries like technology companies. I have two clarifications here. First, in view of the costs incurred by the applicant and claimable under the new section 16CA, I note these apply specifically to general correction orders.”
“In Minister Shanmugam's comments on the POFMA Bill, the Minister made comments to Channel NewsAsia on 13 April and he used an actual example of the financial markets, where, I quote, "the founder of a bitcoin company had died; the news was put out deliberately by somebody, I think, seeking profit. Within a period of four or five hours, billions of dollars were wiped out from the value. Lots of innocent investors lost money." Clause 3 of the Bill clarifies that an entity can seek relief under the Bill and an "entity" is defined to mean any company or association or body of persons whether corporate or incorporate. It follows, therefore, that a company in the Minister's example, the bitcoin company, provided that it was domiciled in Singapore, could apply urgently to the PHCs for perhaps a general correction order to arrest further damage which gives the Court powers to make the appropriate order or the applicant could rely on the other remedies available. The term here is the "expedited relief" that is sought. In such a scenario, how quickly will the Courts hear such an application, given that significant damage, using the Minister's example, can occur within four to five hours? Or does the Bill envisage a faster hearing for the applicant, given that the death of a founder who has actually not died would easily meet the prima facie threshold of an interim order? To that end, it would appear that in some cases, the Courts may have to move faster on online falsehoods affecting individuals and companies and hear applications perhaps in even less than 24 hours.”
“It would be helpful if the Minister could share with the House and lay members of the public what the appropriate test would be in the case above, where real damage, for example, is done to the band. Fourthly, the PHCs and the speed at which they are expected to deal with falsehoods. Sir, clause 20(8) of the Bill creates a specialist Court, the PHCs, that have oversight over all criminal and civil matters under the Bill. A key feature of the Bill is the adoption of simplified procedures involving a straightforward claims form for victims of harassment and doing away with having to initiate an application through an originating summons, something which, more often than not, requires the hiring of a lawyer. This is to be welcomed, especially for those who seek urgent relief. A second important feature of the Bill is the speed at which the PHCs will hear applications. For example, in the case of EPOs where there is a risk of violence or actual violence, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) has indicated the Courts will aim to hear the application within 24 hours. I have one clarification in this regard, and this is not with respect to EPOs, but to victims of falsehoods online where virality is a real concern and applicants can rely on a variety of remedies under the Bill. MinLaw has stated, and I quote, "Courts will be empowered to make relevant interim orders to provide victims with urgent relief". This was in the statement released on 1 April after the First Reading of the Bill. It was not made clear how long that timeline would be. But I understand the Minister has now clarified that it would follow the regime under the EPOs. Even so, let me use an example to suggest why, in certain cases, this may not be satisfactory.”
“The Bill targets both a false statement and a misleading one. While there exists an objective legal test for determining whether a statement of fact is false, can the Minister confirm how the Government expects the Courts to interpret the boundaries of a statement that is misleading in the context of the new remedies provided for under the Bill? I understand from the Minister's Second Reading speech that a reference to the omission of material facts would make out what "misleading" is. But this may not be without controversy, and I will try and use a hypothetical example to explain this point. An individual has made a statement against a black metal band two weeks before it is due to perform, encouraging others not to attend the performance, leading to a loss of revenue and poor ticket sales that can be attributed to the onset of a viral online campaign by an individual. The statement released by the individual that is headlined in bold goes like this: "People who listen to black metal music may commit violence in the real world", alongside pictures of individuals with heavily tattooed faces. From the standpoint of the black metal band, whose music may undoubtedly not be everyone's cup of tea, the statement is misleading because all sorts of people may commit violence in the real world. Therefore, a statement can potentially be misleading if it does not cover all the relevant facts or represent the matter fairly, and the choice of which facts are chosen usually turns on where you stand on any given matter, philosophically, politically or morally, for example. In this scenario, what remedies will be available to the band under the new clause 20(1) of the Bill? I understand there is a corpus of literature on misleading statements when it comes to securities law.”
“Would such sites be found liable for the offence of doxxing where there is no intent on the part of the moderators of the page to harass, but because of the ecology and anonymity provided by the Internet, doxxing ensues nonetheless? Secondly, enhancing protection for victims of intimate partner violence (IPV). My second clarification involves enhancing the penalties for offences against a victim in an intimate relationship with the offender under clause 11 of the Bill. A corollary purpose of the amendments under the Bill are to bring the Protection Order (PO) and Expedited Protection Order (EPO) regime in line with the Personal Protection Order (PPO) regime under the Women's Charter. I believe these are important amendments, providing better protection for individuals, particularly women, who may not be married but are in an intimate partner relationship and suffer from IPV at the hands of their spouses. I read the Minister for Law's speech at PAVE's Dating Violence Awareness Week Event at *SCAPE in February and the stories shared on IPV and, separately, how PAVE's activism and engagement directly resulted in the amendments in this Bill to address current gaps in the law. Indeed, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), the overwhelming global burden of global IPV is borne by women. However, according to WHO, IPVs also occur in same-sex marriages as well. Can I clarify if the remedies proposed under this Bill can be sought by individuals who are not married but are in same-sex relationships? Thirdly, the boundaries of the definition of "misleading" under the Bill. Sir, clause 3 of the Bill explains that "a statement is false if it is false or misleading, whether wholly or in part, and whether on its own or in the context in which it appears".”
“In some cases, netizens would release identity information, such as the perpetrator's place of work and contact numbers and other personal information, ostensibly in the pursuit of a sense of justice. Others, however, may release the information with malicious intent. To this end, clause 6 of the Bill is helpful because it illustrates and clarifies what particular factual circumstances can operate to give rise to the offence of doxxing. Nonetheless, there may be a challenge in other cases, particularly borderline cases where the intent of the individual releasing identity information does not neatly cohere with the offence and illustrations in the Bill. For example, there may be a case where an individual's identity information is already online and another online commentator posts a hyperlink to it with an innocuous comment like, "This person is a lawyer and yet he behaves in such a way" – the actively revealed information being uncontroversial – in this case, the occupation of the individual. However, the hyperlink reveals other personal information like place of work and contact numbers, for example. In such a case, it would be arguable whether the comment and hyperlink together meet the threshold of intent as required under clause 4 of the Bill. What would be the Minister's view on such a scenario? Would the individual who made the comment, and including the hyperlink, be guilty of an offence in such a case? A second issue could be doxxing carried out by anonymous users on popular third party Facebook pages, something which requires active moderation to combat, a resource most social media sites and Facebook page moderators may not have any real bandwidth to undertake.”
“Mr Speaker, the changes proposed to the POHA by this amendment Bill are very significant, in my view, falling into three broad categories: (a) outlawing doxxing, (b) establishing the PHCs with faster processes, and (c) enhancing judicial powers to deal with false statements of fact made against individuals and companies. The Workers' Party supports the Bill. I will speak on five general matters where I seek clarifications about the application of certain clauses in practice. I will also highlight one important area where I feel the Bill falls short in my view. First, the problem of doxxing. Sir, victims in cases of doxxing normally start as perpetrators – they behave in an outlandish, loutish or uncivilised manner. They are shamed, often through social media, with videos of their actions shared and distributed widely. This, in and of itself, is not the issue and the public must be clear that posting and sharing such examples of behaviour is not circumscribed by the Bill, even if other company-specific regulations or codes of conduct apply. So, for example, if an individual says that he had to wash the stench of Singapore Mass Rapid Transit or Singapore Bus Services commuters off his body because he had to take public transport for two weeks that his Mercedes Benz or Bentley was in the workshop and he is then pilloried online for such crass remarks, that, in itself, would not be caught by the Bill. What happens, however, in such cases is that the public approbation that ensues has the potential of inviting vigilante justice against the perpetrator and a real risk of personal harm when the private information of the perpetrator is revealed. This has become a growing problem.”
“Mr Speaker, following on the question by Mr Murali Pillai, would it not be more compelling for the Active Mobility Act to cover non-use of PMDs at void decks, rather than each individual Town Council having to implement rules for that purpose because the force of law then is understood by Singaporeans across the country? To that extent, it is clear that PMDs can be dangerous at void decks and also when they exit from lift lobbies. We have an elderly population. It is going to grow in the next 10 years. I believe that if the Ministry takes the lead, then you will have a lesser chance of untoward incidents happening.”
“I would like to thank the Minister for Defence for the Statement. I just have one clarification. It pertains to the first handout, the summary of COI's findings on the chronology of events, specifically item (6) where the ME-Tech informed CFC(NS) Pang in a mixture of Mandarin and English that the gun barrel was going to be moved to the "standby" position. And thereafter, the late CFC(NS) Pang replied in Mandarin that it was fine and so forth. My first question really pertains to the communication among the servicemen in the turret, whether the COI found a language to be an issue amongst the servicemen, whether the reaction time was slowed because of these issues. The second question is more general. Looking forward, and I think for servicemen who are born in Singapore, we probably understand a little bit of Mandarin and Malay, if you are an Indian. But for certain servicemen who could be new citizens, language could be an issue. Going forward, how does SAF intend to resolve issues that could crop up where in a situation of extreme panic, language potentially could be a cause for an accident?”