Speeches and Statements – Permanent Mission to the UN

STATEMENT BY THE PERMANENT MISSION OF SINGAPORE DURING THE INTERACTIVE DIALOGUE WITH THE UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF OPINION AND EXPRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL, 10 JULY 2020

10 Jul 2020

Mdm President,

I thank the Special Rapporteur for his final Report to the Council and take note of its content.

The Special Rapporteur has made unfounded claims in his Report about Singapore’s “Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA)” that “there is growing concern that Singapore, which in 2019 enacted a law prohibiting deliberate ‘online falsehoods’ will use its new authority to address pandemic information”.

We greatly regret the misrepresentation of POFMA in his Report that implies it is being used to supress genuine information or criticisms about the pandemic in Singapore.

This is particularly regrettable given that Singapore had provided extensive clarifications on the intent of the legislation to the Special Rapporteur in July 2019. On that occasion, Singapore had clearly set out the rationale for this legislation and safeguards in place to prevent its misuse, and it is unfortunate that such an allegation has surfaced.   

As this Council is aware, the right to freedom of expression is not unqualified even under the applicable international human rights law and may be subject to certain restrictions. Article 19 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which was also cited by the Special Rapporteur in his Report,[1] clearly states that the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities, and that it may be subject to certain restrictions only as provided by law and are necessary, including for the protection of public health.

POFMA is Singapore’s response to a real and serious problem. Around the world, online falsehoods have distorted political processes, eroded trust in public institutions, exacerbated societal tensions, and threatened the very foundations of democracy. Many of these dynamics have been exacerbated by COVID-19.

POFMA was drafted after an extensive process of study and public debate and is one part of Singapore’s multi-pronged approach to combating online falsehoods.

It implements the recommendations of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods on what legislation should achieve, including the ability to break virality in a matter of hours, and to ensure calibration in government intervention.

Notably, POFMA primarily relies on Correction Directions, which simply requires facts to be juxtaposed against falsehoods.  The public can access both, and make up their own minds.  A Correction Direction does not impose criminal sanctions. This approach is in line with the psychological research on remedying the influence of falsehoods, and the ample studies showing that corrections seldom outrace falsehoods online. There is also a right of appeal to the Courts, which some who have received POFMA orders have exercised. The Courts have the final say on whether there is a false statement of fact.

During the pandemic, POFMA has been used to correct false statements on the COVID-19 situation, which would have caused panic or confusion, or undermined trust in public institutions during this critical period.

For example:

• In January 2020, several social media posts falsely claimed that one of Singapore’s train stations had been closed for disinfection due to a suspected COVID-19 case and urged the public not to visit this station.
• In January 2020, shortly after Singapore’s first confirmed case of COVID-19, a social media post falsely alleged that Singapore had run out of face masks.
• In January 2020, a social media post falsely claimed that an individual had died in Singapore from a newly identified virus.[2]
• In February 2020, a social media post falsely claimed that the Government was unable to trace the source of infection for any of the infected COVID-19 cases in Singapore.
• In April 2020, a social media post falsely claimed that quarantined migrant workers would not be paid their salaries for the duration of their quarantine.
• In April 2020, a social media post falsely claimed that Police officers had issued a monetary fine for wearing a piece of cloth as a mask.
• In April 2020, a social media post falsely accused the Government of covering up the number of uncontactable suspect cases, then covering up the flight information and profiles of imported cases, and subsequently trying to cover up the total number of cases.
• In May 2020, a social media post falsely claimed that at least 50 students and teachers had been infected as a result of COVID-19 transmission in schools, when none of the infections had been traced back to schools.
• In July 2020, a social media post and videos falsely claimed that the Ministry of Manpower, Singapore, had issued a statement to all employers that if they brought their foreign workers for COVID-19 testing they would lose their work pass privileges; that the Ministry of Manpower, Singapore, actively discouraged the testing of workers; and that the Ministry of Manpower, Singapore, made these decisions without consulting public health medical professionals or the Ministry of Health, Singapore.

Throughout this period, there have continued to be robust public discussions about the COVID-19 situation and the Government’s response. POFMA does not prevent such discussions or criticisms, but helps ensure that they are carried out on a foundation of fact.

I hope that colleagues listening will not overlook the seriousness of this effort to ensure Singapore has the tools we need to effectively counter the genuine and serious threat of fake news and disinformation.

Singapore’s approach may not conform to certain ideological preferences, but our laws are for us to make, as it is the interests of our democratic society which are at stake.

Thank you.

.     .     .     .     .