SINGAPORE — The newly introduced Bill to curb fake news has raised concerns that the cost of appealing against the Government’s correction orders might be prohibitive, an issue that Senior Minister of State for Law Edwin Tong said was a “fair question”.

However, the new laws do not set a high bar for individuals to prove that what he or she wrote is true, Mr Tong said at a forum held at the Singapore Management University (SMU) on Wednesday (April 3).

“Bear in mind this is a question of national interest and public interest that is at stake. If I write something and I was asked to show that it is true, then I think the primary underlying material would be something I already have,” he added.

“(So we are) not talking about going to court on a complicated two-week trial or a complicated hearing that would require a lot of time and expense to go and deal with."

Mr Tong was responding to questions posed at the forum titled Truth and Lies: Trust in Times of Information Disorder.

The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill tabled in Parliament on Monday gives government ministers broad powers that include directing online news sites and platforms to publish corrections alongside the falsehoods made and, in extreme cases, issue a takedown order.

The draft laws have since triggered a raft of criticism, questions and confusion. These included concerns over ministers being given too much discretion and whether the Bill would make the Government an arbiter of truth, a point which Law Minister K Shanmugam dismissed, saying that the courts have the final say on what constituted a falsehood.

Another concern raised was whether the cost of appealing to the courts to challenge government orders could be prohibitive and deter individuals and entities from doing so.

Speaking to some 150 members of the audience, Mr Tong said: "It is a fair question about whether or not you are well-resourced or sufficiently well-resourced to apply to court.”

However, he said that the process involves the courts because it is the right body to have “proper oversight” over a ministerial decision to issue a direction, given that it is independent and separate from the Government.

On whether the costs would be prohibitive, he added: “Well, those of us in Singapore who need financial help and support for legal services, that’s already available and systems are in place to assist those people.”

When an individual appeals against a minister’s order before the courts, the question that would be put forth to the judge is “straightforward”, said Mr Tong.

“What is the question that has to be resolved between me and the judge as a publisher? I just have to show that what I wrote is true. That cannot be a very difficult or high bar... If I wrote it, I must have had a basis for writing it in the first place.”

Assistant Professor Benjamin Joshua Ong from SMU’s School of Law told TODAY that the issue of legal costs deterring people from going to court is a problem common to all kinds of court proceedings.

The risk is mitigated by the fact that nothing in the new law changes the general rule that the party who loses in the appeal may have to pay the winner’s legal costs, regardless of whether the case involves private parties or the Government, said Asst Prof Ong.

But there are ways that the new law can be modified to reduce legal costs, he added.

One suggestion is to modify the Bill, allowing the right of appeal to be made to the State Courts as the fees are generally lower, instead of the High Court.

This is similar to the Small Claims Tribunals system as the court fees are much lower than in other courts, though parties are not allowed to be represented by lawyers, he added.

He also pointed out that filing an appeal online could make the process easier. The Small Claims Tribunals allows individuals to file a claim, submit evidence and fix a hearing date online.

NO 'CHILLING EFFECT'

Reiterating that the new Bill targets online falsehood of facts and not opinions, Mr Tong disagreed that the draft laws would create a “chilling effect” on public discourse.

He said that some effort was required to make the public aware of the distinction between fact and opinion, and to be “very mindful of that distinction when we implement this Bill”.

He was responding to a question from the forum’s moderator, Associate Professor Eugene Tan from SMU’s School of Law. Aside from Mr Tong, the other panelists included Professor Lim Sun Sun, who is the head of humanities, arts and social sciences at the Singapore University of Technology and Design, and Assistant Professor Michael Genkin from SMU’s School of Social Sciences who teaches sociology.

When asked by Prof Lim if the Government had considered the role of an information ombudsman, such as appointing a council to help determine what constitutes falsehoods, Mr Tong said that he “won’t rule this out”.

He added that this could be “something that sits outside the domain of legislation” and that efforts are being made to “strengthen third-party fact checkers, media literacy, to build up objective verifiers of fact” as a resource for the public.

The proposed laws do not state how many people must have seen the false statement of fact for it to apply.

When asked by Assoc Prof Tan about the size and scope of the online audience to which the proposed law applies, Mr Tong said this is as long as someone issues a false statement of fact, even if it is done within a closed group of 10 on a platform such as WhatsApp.

Pointing out that it might be more difficult to issue a correction direction for such platforms, a general correction on other platforms on that particular falsehood may be considered, he added.

‘FAKE NEWS’ ABOUT THE BILL

Weighing in on the debate over the draft laws to counter fake news, Prof Goh Yihan, the dean of SMU’s School of Law, said that he was “astounded by the amount of fake news about this Bill”.

While Prof Goh acknowledged during his speech that he had not read the Bill in detail, he touched on the contentious issue of whether government ministers are final arbiters of truth.

“If you read the Bill, entirely untrue. It is the courts who are the final arbiters. These falsehoods distort the debate about the legislation,” said Prof Goh.

“This is not an unfamiliar arrangement, where the Executive (the Government) has power to make a swift decision. And then the decision can be challenged in court.”

He pointed out that the discourse over the Bill should be on how fake news affect freedom of speech and quality of discussions, adding that the draft laws are about “improving public discourse”.

Regulation is an “important aspect” to counter fake news and that the draft laws strike a “right balance”, said Prof Goh. “(It) swiftly addresses harm and then allows for challenge in court.”