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:-
Latest news - the Government orders that Lawyers for Liberty's website be blocked in Singapore(see media report below)
Protection from Online Falsehoods
and Manipulation Act 2019
and Manipulation Act 2019
PART 3
DIRECTIONS DEALING WITH COMMUNICATION IN SINGAPORE OF FALSE STATEMENTS OF FACT |
| Conditions for issue of Part 3 Directions |
| 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:
|
| Stop Communication Direction |
| (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:
|
| (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. |
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. |
| (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. |
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:
|
| (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. |
Government orders that Lawyers for Liberty's website be blocked in Singapore
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment