YOUR VIEW: Charles Chong’s reply to petition from academia – in need of moral authority or directional compass?
This email by a reader was sent to us via reachus@oath.com and other channels. We welcome your views. Please include your full name, age and occupation if you want your emails to be considered for publishing. Please note that all submissions will be subject to these terms.
At the risk of dragging out the brouhaha that followed the Select Committee hearings on fake news, something must be said about chairman Charles Chong’s response to a petition signed by about 230 members from academia around the world in support of Dr Thum Ping Tjin’s academic freedom.
Chong’s statement contains many misinterpretations about the thrusts of the petition, which any reader can examine by comparing the difference between Chong’s letter and the petition. Misinterpretations are not falsehoods, of course, but it is worth noting that Chong and the petitioners have clearly different standards for the conduct of the hearings.
What should not be ambiguous, however, is where the Committee stands in this whole affair. As the chairman wrote, “We asked him to defend a claim that he had put to us. If Dr Thum could not defend his claims under questioning, surely this must reflect on the quality of his writings and research, not the process?”
If this was the case, then the Committee needs to recheck its own terms of reference, which are to examine and report on:
The phenomenon of using digital technology to deliberately spread falsehoods online;
The motivations and reasons for the spreading of such falsehoods, and the types of individuals and entities, both local and foreign, which engage in such activity;
The consequences that the spread of online falsehoods can have on Singapore society, including to our institutions and democratic processes; and
How Singapore can prevent and combat online falsehoods, including the principles that should guide Singapore’s response, and any specific measures, including legislation, that should be taken.
None of the above adequately describes the need to get submitters to “defend their claims”. For sure, the Committee should ask them to clarify and explain their proposals, and where doubt arises, to either ask for further supporting proof or discount it in its deliberations.
If this was done, the hearings would have been considered a consultative forum. The discontent among the academia who signed the petition and local civil society groups says that it was anything but. They have opined that some sessions have turned into interrogations, out to prove those submitters wrong, to the extent of disputing their professional and personal credibility.
That should not be the Select Committee’s role.
As the chairman rightly pointed out, the Committee did have a duty to ask Thum to “explain his position, by reference to relevant documents.” But what exactly was Thum’s position?
Few would bother to read Thum’s submission among the 167 entries that the Committee chose to publish. Yet given the protracted interest in Thum’s representation, it will do Singaporeans well to read it in detail to understand what the fracas was about.
You might, for instance, discover that the key contention between Law Minister K Shanmugam and Thum – according to Chong, that “Dr Thum alleged that the Singapore Government is the chief source of fake news in Singapore” – barely constitutes one of five issues highlighted by Thum, which were:
Fake news is impossible to define accurately;
Sources of fake news that lie outside our borders (such as those highlighted in the course of the hearings) are difficult to trace and prosecute;
We already have too many laws that stifle free speech and these need to be reformed and repealed instead;
Any new law can only further contravene civil rights; and
The only notable impact that any fake news had on Singapore was during Operation Coldstore, which were perpetuated by a local political party for political gain.
A close listen of the exchange between Shanmugam and Thum shows that the session was based almost entirely on proving the veracity of just this half-sentence in Thum’s submission: “…there was no evidence that the detainees of Operation Coldstore were involved in any conspiracy to subvert the government”.
That is really very little of Thum’s submission covered in the six-hour long session.
In fact, just Thum’s fifth point could potentially have highlighted that Singapore’s situation is reminiscent of an allegedly deliberate disinformation campaign fuelled by a local political actor. Unfortunately, his session was so narrowly focused that it never came close to addressing this issue.
If Chong wants us to believe that the Committee had attempted to get Thum to “explain his position”, he is missing the target by a full nine yards.
It is hence questionable if the Committee has any moral authority to cast doubts on the “quality of his writings and research” when it had barely scratched the surface of Thum’s submission. But the Committee has a more pressing and immediate task: Showing Singaporeans that it has a directional compass on the fake news issue.
The hearings have followed a pattern in the eight days they were held: Prove that fake news poses a “clear and present danger” to Singapore; point out that social media platform owners and online media are not capable of self-regulation; and the legal route is the only way to identify fake news and the best option to remove it quickly.
The Committee’s efforts were discernibly directed at affirmation, not consultation. This is a clear departure from its stated terms of reference, and can be seen not just with Thum, but with many others who have bothered to stand before the Committee hoping to offer an alternative opinion.
The Committee now has to justify that any recommendation it makes has seriously taken into consideration the diverse opinions that were offered but never fully discussed at the hearings. And given its high profile, such justification must now begin by addressing Thum’s submission in full and work its way to those presented by others – especially activists and academics, who were perceived to be the groups that the Committee dismissed and discredited the most.
Only then can the Committee claim, as Chong did, that “we all benefited from the learning they brought to bear on the questions before us”.
By Howard Lee
The author gave evidence before the Select Committee and is also a signatory to the petition. He is a former editor of The Online Citizen and is currently doing his PhD on media governance in Singapore.
