SINGAPORE — A day after several civil activists criticised the Select Committee for the way it conducted the public hearings on deliberate online falsehoods, human rights group Maruah voiced similar concerns on Tuesday (Apr 3) about the aggressive and "confrontational" approach adopted by the committee.

In a press statement, the group said the public hearings were "akin to being in a courtroom", where the committee acted in an "unnecessarily disrespectful manner" towards witnesses, and was at times patronising and discriminatory.

"Incidentally no witness in these hearing sessions is an accused party to any wrongdoing on 'falsehoods'," said Maruah, adding that any wrongdoing on the part of the witnesses could be "ascertained through a non-Parliamentary mechanism".

Contacted by TODAY, committee chairman Charles Chong said: "We received some feedback/complaints from a few presenters. The Select Committee will look into these complaints, review the transcripts and respond to those who have written to us." 

Maruah was among the groups and individuals who submitted written representations to the committee. Its vice-president Ngiam Shih Tung also gave oral evidence at one of the public hearings.

Citing a desire to put on record its misgivings about the proceedings where it was present as both "witness and observer", Maruah expressed its dissatisfaction with the modus operandi and the approach taken by the committee.

"We observed on March 27 and 29, the committee was unrelentingly adverse to these particular witnesses," Maruah said.

Maruah noted that based on the committee's terms of reference, it was engaged at the bequest of Parliament to give witnesses a chance to share their ideas, defend their positions, be challenged on the substance of their submissions, and co-create possible solutions.

Instead, the committee was "overly focused, through a process of intense interrogation, on showing that the witnesses were propagators of 'falsehoods' or sharing 'falsehoods' as online content providers".

Noting that the majority of the committee members were legally trained, Maruah said its methods to elicit a "yes" or "no" response also gave witnesses little room to elaborate on remarks made to them.

While it acknowledged there was no prescribed modus operandi or approach stated in the committee's terms of reference, Maruah questioned if it had acted within its remit, as discussions on deliberate online falsehoods appeared to have "taken a backseat" in the hearings, "especially the one held on March 29".

Maruah was referring to the final session which was dominated by an exchange between Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam and historian Thum Ping Tjin lasting almost six hours. Mr Shanmugam and Dr Thum locked horns over events that took place during the Communist era, with the Cabinet Minister criticising the Oxford research fellow for having "fallen completely" short of the standards of an objective historian.

Emphasising the need to build a higher level of trust in society, Maruah said that even if disagreements occur, all parties involved "ought to handle and manage the discourse well", given that "no one institution has all the answers".

On the issue of online falsehoods, Maruah said that while it agreed there are challenges in ascertaining such information, it retierated that there are sufficient laws in place and disagreed with the need for further legislation.

Instead, it called for a review of current laws, including the Singapore Code of Advertising Practice.

However, should the committee recommend new legislation, Maruah said the draft law should be put up for public consultation. It also called for the setting up of an independent council consisting of academics, media professionals and tertiary students.

The council's mandate would be to define and ascertain the definition of "falsehoods" for example, examine the impact of fake news, as well as develop solutions.

Calling for a Freedom of Information Act to be introduced, Maruah added: "We state, without reservations, that the level of success for a population to deal with 'falsehoods' is how well they are educated in critical thinking."

On Monday, some civil activists — including those who gave oral evidence at the public hearings last week — issued a joint statement on the hearings. The statement — signed off by civil activist groups Community Action Network and Function 8, freelance journalist Kirsten Han, historian Thum Ping Tjin, and the Online Citizen editor Terry Xu — took issue with the committee for not adhering to its terms of reference, and for not appearing "interested in soliciting" the views of the activists involved in the hearings.