Letters | Singapore’s fake news law does not restrict the freedom of speech
- Each time the Singapore government has issued correction notices to online posts, it has detailed the falsehoods and public interest involved
- Singapore is determined to stop xenophobia or nativist sentiments from taking root in local politics
This is untrue. In every case where we have issued correction notices to online posts, we have detailed the falsehoods as well as the public interest involved. Far from being matters of “interpretation of statistics” or “opinion of facts”, the statements corrected were all demonstrably factually false.
In two instances, the falsehoods were clearly intended to stir suspicion and fear of foreigners in Singapore.
What is fake news and how does it affect Asia?
You quote Dr Chee Soon Juan of the Singapore Democratic Party as saying that his party would “go to court if we have to”. But it is telling that, so far, neither the SDP nor any of those who have received Pofma directions have appealed the notices or taken the matter to court.
That would settle, simply and conclusively, whether the posts are opinions or facts and, if they are facts, whether they are true or false. Why have they not done this?
We have not restricted free debate. None of the statements subjected to Pofma directions has been removed. Surely, giving readers more information, and enabling them to decide for themselves where the truth lies, can only enhance public debate.
How can anyone’s rights be impaired by requiring a correction to be posted alongside a falsehood?
Singapore Prime Minister says fake news law won’t muzzle free speech
You also quote Mr Phil Robertson of Human Rights Watch (HRW). Mr Robertson has repeatedly declined our offers to argue HRW’s position and show up the Singapore government’s errors face to face.
Now, from the safe distance of a quotation in a Post article, he claims that we “ducked” the opportunity to respond to HRW’s report on Singapore.
We repeat here, for the fourth time, our invitation to him to debate a Singapore minister. If he is so convinced we cannot withstand HRW’s withering arguments, surely he should not hesitate to accept our invitation.
The Singapore government never shies away from answering foreign critics. They can say what they please. All we insist upon is the right of reply. That same logic applies to Pofma.
Foo Teow Lee, consul-general, Singapore Consulate-General in Hong Kong
