Singapore passes a law intended to stop fake news

What is this new law all about?

Earlier this month, The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act came into force (after being published in April).

The Act is intended to prevent the dissemination and effect of false statements, which has been the topic of daily news for the past few years, especially after the last US presidential election.  Specifically, the Act is intended to curb the effect of information manipulation on online platforms.

The Act has some serious clout, requiring online platforms to place warnings next to content that the government deems to be false, and to take down any serious content or material.  Content can include messages, posts, articles, pictures, videos and sound recordings. 

Here is the kicker though – the Act seems to apply to any conduct in or outside of Singapore, if intended to be communicated in Singapore, and which the offending publisher knows, or has any reason to believe, would be false.  The Act then stipulates a string of things to which the conduct must “likely be prejudicial” including: the Security of Singapore, public health, public safety, public tranquillity, or public finances.  

The Act also prohibits false statements that are: prejudicial to the friendly relations of Singapore to other countries, incite feelings of hatred, influence the outcome of an election, or diminish public confidence in the performance of the government. 

What happens if you fail to comply?

The Act interestingly and, in my view correctly, makes a distinction between penalties handed down to individuals and companies transgressing the law, on their own, and those transgressions committed by individuals or companies under the operation of fake accounts or bots. 

In the case of the former, the penalties for non-compliance is a maximum fine of S$50,000 (about R550,000), a prison term of 5 years, or both, for an individual and a fine up to S$500,000 (about R5,000,000) for companies.

Where an inauthentic online account or bot is used, the penalties escalate to S$100,000, a prison term of 10 years, or both, for an individual and a fine up to S$1 000,000 for companies.  You can do the math to work out the South African impact. Spoiler alert - it involves a lot of zeros.

What does this mean for free speech?

Singapore is without a doubt the epicentre of technology and finance in Asia, but it has received a lot of criticism in the past for its strict parental approach to civil liberties. The Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has, however, defended the bill saying “I don't see our legislation as being in any way restrictive of free speech”.  

Whilst I agree with the PM in principle, insofar as the need to regulate the distribution of fake news, especially by those technologies that can have an exponential effect and influence on the public, I think that the discretion the government has in determining what might contravene the Act is still exceptionally wide. 

There also does not seem to be any distinction made for the penalties handed down to different types of companies that transgress the law, meaning that a small media company could face the same fine as a company like Facebook.  In this respect, the maximum penalty allowed would cripple a small business, but not really even touch sides with Facebook.

In terms of how a similar law would be applied in South Africa, that would still have to be tested (as all legislation is) against our Constitution, which requires that any right including the right to freedom of expression and the press, only be limited in terms of a law of general application and in a way that is both reasonable and proportional. This involves the balancing of all rights against each other.  The US, on the other hand, places the freedom of expression above anything else.

I don't think that this new law of Singapore is perfect by any means, but it is a good start and will be an interesting yardstick for other countries to measure themselves against.  Most importantly, the social media giants Facebook, Twitter and Google all have their Asian headquarters in Singapore. This should, in theory, put some pressure on them to change the way their content is reviewed. They have all been given temporary exemptions from some provisions in the Act to give them time to adapt their processed and comply with the law, so let's see what they do about this.