Singapore's law ministry refutes Human Rights Watch criticism of proposed fake news laws: report
Singapore’s Ministry of Law has on Wednesday (3 April) refuted assertions by Human Rights Watch (HRW) that proposed new laws under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill would excessively restrict online freedom of speech.
The Bill was tabled in Parliament on Monday, and seeks to protect society against the damage from deliberate online falsehoods created by malicious actors. Proposed sanctions include fines of between $30,000 and up to $1 million, and/or jail time of up to 10 years. The authorities could also issue correction directions or take-down orders.
The proposed laws come six months after a Select Committee made its recommendations.
Strong criticism from HRW
HRW published an online post on Wednesday criticising the Bill, claiming that it is “sweepingly broad” and “threatens to stifle discussion on websites worldwide”.
Its deputy Asia director Phil Robertson was quoted as calling the draft laws “a blatant violation of free speech and an affront to freedom of the Internet, and governments and businesses around the world should call on Singapore to withdraw it immediately”.
He added, “Singapore’s ministers should not have the power to singlehandedly decree what is true and what is false. Given Singapore’s long history of prohibiting speech critical of the government, its policies or its officials, its professed concerns about ‘online falsehoods’ and alleged election manipulation are farcical.”
HRW refused chance to explain its views at Select Committee hearing
According to Today Online, the Ministry of Law has rejected HRW’s claims, saying that its statements are part of its “long-standing practice of issuing biased and one-sided statements about Singapore”.
MinLaw added that HRW was unwilling to come to last year’s Select Committee hearings, despite offers to fund its travel costs or to use video-conferencing. “It was an opportunity for HRW to give its views, and explain views it had previously expressed about free speech in Singapore, with local and international media present,” the ministry said in a response to HRW’s report.
“HRW did not dare to come before the Select Committee because it knew that its views were biased and indefensible, and without any basis in fact.
“HRW’s initial willingness to appear before the Select Committee evaporated once it was informed that its representative should be prepared to answer questions about its views on Singapore.”
According to Today Online, MinLaw said that it will generally not respond further to HRW until it confirms that it is prepared to defend its views.
Related stories:
Edwin Tong disagrees with view of fake news law’s ‘chilling effect’ on political discussions
