SINGAPORE — Even after a firm rebuttal from Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam on Tuesday, the three Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) who submitted an amendment to the fake news Bill stood firm and called for a vote on it.

Speaking in Parliament on Tuesday and Wednesday (May 8), the three — Ms Irene Quay, Ms Anthea Ong and Associate Professor Walter Theseira — asked Parliament to lift the whip so that MPs could vote on the amendment, which proposes changes to limit the scope of powers granted to ministers in the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill.

These include a clause that sets out key principles which guide the exercise of powers under the Act, along with requirements that any directions issued are publicly justified, and requirements that the appeals process be sped up.

In his speech to open the debate on the Bill on Tuesday, Mr Shanmugam gave a point-by-point rebuttal of their proposals.

For example, he said, some of the changes they called for will be set out in a subsidiary legislation.

Speaking in Parliament on Wednesday, Ms Ong pointed out that even though there will be subsidiary legislation, this could later be amended without coming before Parliament.

She said she and her two fellow NMPs want the amendments made to the primary legislation so that any future minister or government would have to table any changes in Parliament first.

PLAIN LANGUAGE

One of the points on which the NMPs stood their ground was the need for the Bill to have a clause that sets out key principles which guide the exercise of powers under the Act.

For example, this clause would specifically state that the law targets materially false statements and does not apply to opinions, comments, critiques, satire, parody, generalisations or statements of experiences.

Speaking on Tuesday after Mr Shanmugam, Ms Quay said that certain terms in the Bill, such as “diminution of public interest” and "false statement of fact” are defined too broadly, which could stifle free speech.

This is important because Singapore does not have a law such as the Freedom of Information Act in the United States, which allows citizens to ask for information directly from the Government.

Ms Ong said: “Our citizens will need to think twice if a view is fact or opinion before expressing it, and be able to correctly interpret a view even if further information is not readily available."

Acknowledging the Law Minister’s reassurance that the Bill would not stifle free speech, Ms Ong, who spoke on Wednesday, added that as it is written now, it “does not contain such assurances that limit how the Bill’s powers can be used”.

A SHARED REALITY — BUT IN WHOSE INTEREST?

In his speech on Tuesday, Mr Shanmugam stressed that like public infrastructure, society depends on an “infrastructure of fact” that gives society a “shared reality”, and that this shared belief in the same facts and truths is what helps democracies function.  

Assoc Prof Theseira argued, however, that when governments make judgements about what constitutes this shared reality, that is inherently a political act.

“I do not mean they are always partisan acts, carried out for narrow political gain. A good government would not act that way. I trust that this Government wouldn’t,” he added.

“But they are political acts because they must serve the definition of public interest that the government of the day believes in.”

He cited the example of Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei, who was put on trial by the Roman Inquisition of the Catholic Church because he found evidence to support the theory that the earth and other planets revolve around the sun — a theory accepted as fact now but which the Catholic Church at the time found to be “fundamentally incompatible with the Bible”.

“All governments have a political objective to defend a shared reality that suits their interest. For example, the United States Environmental Protection Agency changes its views on the climate change science depending on who is president (of the country),” Assoc Prof Theseira said.

“Is it in the public interest for science to be unnecessarily determined by politics?”

HARD TO LET THE BILL PASS IN CURRENT FORM

While all three NMPs said they agreed that there is a need for laws to counter online falsehoods, they said they found it hard to support the passage of the Bill in its present form.

Ms Quay said: “While I do see positive elements within the Bill, Mr Speaker, this Bill in its current state will need further clarifications before it is ready to be passed.”

Ms Ong told the House that a vote for the amendments would not mean that MPs are standing against the legislative intent of the Bill. But it means “you believe in this parliamentary process to register your, and your constituents’, concerns with the Bill and to ensure that this and future governments are bound to the intent of the Bill”, she said.

Assoc Prof Theseira added: “I agree with the principles of the Bill, and I support the second reading of this Bill. But I find it difficult to support final passage of this Bill unless I am satisfied the Bill contains strong protections against abuse by an unjust future government.”

Still, he added, he understands why members of the Government may not share his reservations.

“I accept they have great confidence that their present good governance will continue. But for me, this is a matter of policy and of conscience. I hope the Government will consider allowing a conscience vote for its members.”