SINGAPORE — The threshold for any new law enacted to combat falsehoods that undermine a country’s racial and religious harmony should not be set “too low”, a media academic said at a Select Committee public hearing on Tuesday (March 27).

Otherwise, the legislation could “backfire” and be misused by opportunists who want to suppress the views of others, Hong Kong-based Singaporean professor Cherian George said.

Testifying at the hearing held by the Select Committee studying online falsehoods, Prof George pointed out that there are existing laws in Singapore to deal with various types of inflammatory speech.

The media professor at the Hong Kong Baptist University cited Section 298 of the Penal Code, which makes it an offence to deliberately wound the religious or racial feelings of a person. He argued that this legal provision has its flaws, as insults that hurt feelings are subjective and difficult to disprove.

Prof George, who is a former Straits Times journalist, submitted an eight-page written representation to the committee. It mainly focused on hate propaganda, which uses disinformation tactics.

Pointing out the distinction between incitement of hate and insults, he noted that the latter is considered “protected speech” under international human rights law.

While some European countries prohibit incitement of hate, others including Singapore also regulate insults as they argue that the “risks of inflammatory expression are so serious that the threshold for legal intervention must be lowered”, Prof George said. “Instead of waiting for speech to reach truly dangerous levels, (these countries believe that) the state should extinguish provocations at their first flickers,” he added.

Calling for a repeal of Section 298 — a proposal which he admitted would be “controversial” — Prof George cautioned against having “any anti-disinformation law” which is in line with this provision in order to combat falsehoods relating to race and religion.

Such a law might be seen as protecting social harmony on the surface, he noted. But there are hatemongers “who will exploit any state-sanctioned right to be offended in order to gain the upper hand”.

Citing the case of former Jakarta Governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama or “Ahok” who was prosecuted for blasphemy, Prof George noted that insult laws can be “weaponised” by opportunists who might “manufacture indignation and then demand that the state uphold its insult laws by punishing the individuals and groups accused of causing offence”.

Acknowledging that legislation is not a complete solution, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam noted that there is a committee – headed by the Ministry of Law – looking at the “root and branch review” of the Penal Code. “We will certainly put your views across,” he told Prof George.

Still, Mr Shanmugam stressed that the “absence or presence” of Section 298 is not a “determinative factor”. Instead, it depends on the type of Government that a country has, he said.

“I think that’s going to be the key point, because these areas… race and religion, wounded feelings and so on can be impacted quite badly with bad governance whether there is absence or presence of Section 298,” he added.

Prof George also cautioned that it is a fallacy to view social media — despite the hype over it — as the “main or a necessary vehicle” for hate campaigns.

He noted that hate propagandists “use the Internet when it suits them” and would not be helpless without it. “Disproportionate attention paid to social media may be counterproductive,” he said.

He added: “It also underestimates the versatility of hate propagandists. Taking away their Internet tools would not suppress the spread of their viewpoints. They would simply find other means, including by going underground.”