Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act? Draconian and anti HR Defenders/Media?

Singapore's POFMA (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019) is a draconian piece of legislation...

It allows the government to issue notices to organisations, media and individuals to FORCE them to 'admit" that their writing, views, media statements, media report are FALSE or contain falsehood.

11(4)  A person who communicated a false statement of fact in Singapore may be issued a Correction Direction even if the person does not know or has no reason to believe that the statement is false.

CREDIBILITY is important for HR Defenders, including media - Hence, the insertion of a notice admitting that the allegations are false or contain falsehood is most detrimental...more since a non-compliance can result in imprisonment an/or large fines up to SGD500,000.

It is not that the government(or the court or an independent tribunal)  had conducted a comprehensive investigations, after also considering the available evidence of the HR Defender and according a right to be heard. 

In the case of the Lawyers For Liberty, their statement merely highlights allegations based on information that they received from whom they believe is a credible witness or source. They previously informed the government about this including their willingness to forward relevant evidence - All that they wanted is for the government to investigate and act upon these allegations.

Media merely reports the statement of groups and individuals - they are obliged to TRY and get a response from the alleged perpetrator and/or other wrongdoers - but if no immediate response is given, Media cannot be faulted for publishing the report.

The entire POFMA (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019) is defective because it is based on an administrative(Minister's) decision - not a Judicial decision. After all, the government can go to court and get a relevant order - even an interim order - pending the full hearing involving the alleged perpetrator who government claims is disseminating falsehood...What happens if it is the government that may be disseminating falsehood...?? 

Now, the Singapore government publicly came out and says that all that has been alleged by Lawyers For Liberty are FALSE - But then, did they even consider the evidence in the hands of Lawyers For Liberty and the relevant witnesses - being a person who was involved in the actual execution. No - apparently they did not? [So should this claim by Singapore also contain a 'notice' stating that this assertion by Singapore also may contain 'falsehood'?

Who should be determining whether a statement is 'FAKE News' or contains falsehood? It should be the Judiciary, after according the right to be heard and a fair trial.

Non-placement of the 'Notice' is made a crime - this is totally unjust. The crime should be propagation of false or fake news, and the onus of proof should be with the prosecution.

HR Defenders, including media, should only have the duty of HIGHLIGHTING wrongdoings or really alleged wrongdoings. In fact, it is a DUTY of any person. TRUTH or FALSEHOOD is then to be determined by the relevant authorities and government.

NOW, the POFMA also gives the government power to block internet access to the relevant websites....Should it not at worst be blocking of internet access to the relevant article/statement/report not the entire website? In the past, government tend to black out certain reports in newspapers...but the rest of the newspapers can still be sold or disemminated.

(2)  The Minister may direct the IMDA to order the internet access service provider to take reasonable steps to disable access by end‑users in Singapore to the online location (called in this section an access blocking order), and the IMDA must give the internet access service provider an access blocking order.

What about COMPENSATION if later the report is proven to contain no falsehood?

Latest news - the  Government orders that Lawyers for Liberty's website be blocked in Singapore(see media report below)

See earlier related posts:- 

Singapore denies 'barbaric execution methods', issue POFMA orders asking correction of statements?

'...barbaric, unlawful execution methods in Singapore...'? Malaysia must act to uphold justice?

Protection from Online Falsehoods
and Manipulation Act 2019

PART 3

DIRECTIONS DEALING WITH COMMUNICATION IN SINGAPORE OF FALSE STATEMENTS OF FACT

Conditions for issue of Part 3 Directions

10.—(1)  Any Minister may instruct the Competent Authority to issue a Part 3 Direction if all of the following conditions are satisfied: (a) a false statement of fact (called in this Part the subject statement) has been or is being communicated in Singapore; (b) the Minister is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to issue the Direction. (2)  Any Minister may instruct the Competent Authority to issue a Part 3 Direction in relation to the subject statement even if it has been amended or has ceased to be communicated in Singapore.

Correction Direction

11.—(1)  A Correction Direction is one issued to a person who communicated the subject statement in Singapore, requiring the person to communicate in Singapore in the specified form and manner, to a specified person or description of persons (if any), and by the specified time, a notice (called in this Part a correction notice) that contains one or both of the following: (a) a statement, in such terms as may be specified, that the subject statement is false, or that the specified material contains a false statement of fact; (b) a specified statement of fact, or a reference to a specified location where the specified statement of fact may be found, or both. (2)  A Correction Direction may require the person to whom it is issued to communicate in Singapore a correction notice in a specified online location. (3)  A Correction Direction may also require the person to whom it is issued to do one or both of the following: (a) to communicate in Singapore the correction notice by placing it in the specified proximity to every copy of the following that is communicated by the person in Singapore: (i) the false statement of fact; (ii) a substantially similar statement; (b) to publish the correction notice in the specified manner in a specified newspaper or other printed publication of Singapore. (4)  A person who communicated a false statement of fact in Singapore may be issued a Correction Direction even if the person does not know or has no reason to believe that the statement is false. (5)  In this section — (a) “specified” means specified in the Correction Direction; and (b) a person does not communicate a statement in Singapore merely by doing any act for the purpose of, or that is incidental to, the provision of — (i) an internet intermediary service; (ii) a telecommunication service; (iii) a service of giving the public access to the internet; or (iv) a computing resource service.

Stop Communication Direction

12.—(1)  A Stop Communication Direction is one issued to a person who communicated the subject statement in Singapore, requiring the person to stop communicating in Singapore the subject statement by the specified time.

(2)  A Stop Communication Direction may also require the person to whom it is issued to stop communicating any statement that is substantially similar to the subject statement.

(3)  A Stop Communication Direction may also require the person to whom it is issued to do one or both of the following: (a) to communicate in Singapore a correction notice in the specified form and manner, to a specified person or description of persons (if any), and by the specified time; (b) to publish a correction notice in the specified manner in a specified newspaper or other printed publication of Singapore.

(4)  A person who communicated a false statement of fact in Singapore may be issued a Stop Communication Direction even if the person does not know or has no reason to believe that the statement is false.

(5)  Once a Stop Communication Direction has been issued, the Competent Authority must publish a notice of that fact in the Gazette as soon as possible.

(6)  However, a failure to publish the notice of the issue of the Stop Communication Direction in the Gazette does not invalidate the Direction.

Non-compliance with Part 3 Direction an offence 

15.—(1)  A person to whom a Part 3 Direction is issued and served and who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with the Direction whether in or outside Singapore, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction —

(a)	in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both; or
(b)	in any other case, to a fine not exceeding $500,000.

(2)  It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (1) that —

(a)	the person is subject to a duty under any written law, any rule of law, any contract or any rule of professional conduct, that prevents the person from complying with any part of a Part 3 Direction or restricts the person in such compliance; or
(b)	the person has applied under section 19 to vary or cancel the Part 3 Direction or has appealed to the High Court against the Direction.

Access blocking order 

16.—(1)  This section applies where —

(a)	a person fails to comply with a Part 3 Direction;
(b)	the subject statement is being communicated in Singapore by the person on an online location; and
(c)	the Minister is satisfied that one or more end‑users in Singapore have used or are using the services of an internet access service provider to access that online location.

(2)  The Minister may direct the IMDA to order the internet access service provider to take reasonable steps to disable access by end‑users in Singapore to the online location (called in this section an access blocking order), and the IMDA must give the internet access service provider an access blocking order.

Appeals to High Court17.—(1)  A person to whom a Part 3 Direction is issued may appeal to the High Court against the Direction.

(2)  No appeal may be made to the High Court by any person unless the person has first applied to the Minister mentioned in section 19 to vary or cancel the Part 3 Direction under that section, and the Minister refused the application whether in whole or in part.

(3)  An appeal may only be made to the High Court within such period as may be prescribed by Rules of Court.

(4)  The High Court must hear and determine any such appeal and may either confirm the Part 3 Direction or set it aside.

(5)  The High Court may only set aside a Part 3 Direction on any of the following grounds on an appeal: (a) the person did not communicate in Singapore the subject statement; (b) the subject statement is not a statement of fact, or is a true statement of fact; (c) it is not technically possible to comply with the Direction.

(6)  A Part 3 Direction that is the subject of an appeal under subsection (1) remains in effect despite the appeal, and only ceases to have effect if it is set aside by the High Court or the Court of Appeal on appeal from the High Court, or if it expires or is cancelled under section 19.

(7)  Despite subsection (6), if the appellant establishes a prima facie case that it is technically impossible to comply with the Part 3 Direction, the High Court may direct that the Direction be stayed pending determination of the appeal.

Government orders that Lawyers for Liberty's website be blocked in Singapore

File photo of a mobile phone user. (Photo: Xabryna Kek)

24 Jan 2020 11:38AM (Updated: 24 Jan 2020 11:40AM)

SINGAPORE: Singapore has ordered that the website for a Malaysian human rights group be blocked in the country.

The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) has been directed to issue access blocking orders for the website of Lawyers for Liberty.

The orders mean Internet access service providers will have to disable access for users in Singapore to Lawyers for Liberty's website.

IMDA was directed to issue the orders by the Minister for Communications and Information, the ministry announced on Thursday (Jan 23).

This comes after Lawyers for Liberty's "non-compliance" with a correction direction issued against a statement on its website, said the ministry.

READ: Yahoo Singapore adds correction notice to Facebook post about Malaysian group's claims of 'brutal' executions

READ: Singapore invokes online falsehoods law against Malaysian rights group's 'preposterous' claims on execution methods

On Jan 16, Lawyers for Liberty released a press statement alleging brutal execution methods at Singapore's Changi Prison.

In its statement, it alleged that prison officers were instructed to "pull the rope around the neck of the prisoner towards him" and "kick the back of the neck of the prisoner with great force in order to break it", whenever the rope broke during a hanging.

The group was subsequently issued a correction direction by the Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) office, along with three other parties for spreading the allegations.

However, Lawyers for Liberty said it would not comply with the correction direction, saying it stood by its claims that prisoners on death row at Singapore's Changi Prison are executed brutally.

In its statement on Thursday, the Ministry for Communications and Information (MCI) said the correction direction had "required the facts to be juxtaposed against the falsehoods, so that end-users in Singapore can read both versions and draw their own conclusions".

"LFL (Lawyers for Liberty) chose not to comply," said the ministry. "The access blocking orders will ensure that the falsehoods do not continue to be communicated in Singapore without the facts placed alongside them."

It added the access blocking orders would be cancelled should Lawyers for Liberty subsequently carry the correction notice required by the correction direction.

Lawyers for Liberty's website was still accessible as of 11.30am, Singapore time. Source: CNA/nc