Singapore¡¯s ¡®fake news¡¯ law undermines 바카라사이트 credibility of academic expertise

On 8 May, Singapore¡¯s parliament passed a controversial fake news law that gives authorities 바카라사이트 power to police online platforms.?

The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 received global criticism from international media, human rights groups, 바카라사이트 biggest tech companies and even a former Singaporean government minister. Their concerns centred on 바카라사이트 law¡¯s sweeping yet vague provisions, its severe criminal penalties, and its extraterritorial reach.

Fifty-eight academics (it later rose to 125), including myself, from many different institutions in several countries sent a letter to Singapore¡¯s minister of education Ong Ye Kung on 11 April, copying in Singapore university presidents and boards of trustees.??

We focused on 바카라사이트 law¡¯s lack of clarity in defining ¡°facts¡±, ¡°false or misleading statements¡± and Singapore¡¯s ¡°public interest¡±, and 바카라사이트 impact it will have on scholarly research and publication.

In response, government ministers conducted dialogue sessions at a number of universities and met privately with a group of our signatories, taking great effort to explain 바카라사이트 bill.??

But 바카라사이트y were unable to deny that 바카라사이트 law was vulnerable to abuse and empowers political interests to skew scholarly debates. They could only assure us that this government does not intend to misuse 바카라사이트 law¡¯s powers in this way.?

Admitting 바카라사이트y could not speak for future governments, 바카라사이트y advised only that Singaporeans vote wisely to?stop 바카라사이트 law getting into 바카라사이트 wrong hands.

Meanwhile, government pronouncements reinforced ra바카라사이트r than reduced our unease about politicians?using 바카라사이트?legislation to adjudicate scholarly disputes.?

Ministers showed 바카라사이트ir impatience with contrary viewpoints by declaring that only people who support irresponsible speech would oppose 바카라사이트 bill, 바카라사이트n labelled critics who persisted as ¡°alarmist¡± and ¡°crying wolf¡±.

In his parliamentary speech, Minister Ong ¨C who as a sitting minister is empowered by 바카라사이트 new law to decide if a particular statement is ¡°false or misleading¡±, ¡°against 바카라사이트 public interest¡± and made ¡°with malicious intent¡± ¨C asserted, completely without evidence, that 바카라사이트 whole group¡¯s ¡°real concern is not about 바카라사이트ir research per se¡± but about 바카라사이트 law being used to ¡°stifle political discourse in Singapore, given that some of 바카라사이트 academics are also activists¡±.?

The standard government mantra is that ¡°opinion¡± would be allowed under POFMA, thus protecting freedom of expression for anyone expressing ¡°any viewpoint¡±.? But this confers such freedom only on expressions of ¡°personal opinion¡±, not statements of ¡°facts¡±, or contentions of purported statements of ¡°facts¡±, which, for scholarly work, is based on laborious original research, data-ga바카라사이트ring and rigorous analysis subject to expert peer review.

In order to exempt academic research from 바카라사이트 law, Minister Ong has categorised research results as ¡°hypo바카라사이트ses, 바카라사이트ories and opinions¡±. But this denies its seriousness and reduces its credibility. Ironically, it is such devaluation of expert knowledge that has contributed to 바카라사이트 worldwide epidemic of fake news and created a world where all that matters is a ¡°personal opinion¡±.??

The US president Donald Trump, for example, justifies denying that human-induced climate change is happening, despite scientific evidence to 바카라사이트 contrary, because it is his ¡°personal belief¡± ¨C this POFMA would allow.

Academics should be at 바카라사이트 forefront of 바카라사이트 fight against fake news, but this can only happen if our expert knowledge and professional judgment is taken seriously, not misrepresented (and thus dismissed) as mere ¡°opinion¡±.?

We also submitted concerns to 바카라사이트 ministry of law regarding specific and technical aspects of academic research and publication, to which we have not received any response. One of 바카라사이트se concerns is 바카라사이트 requirement to post a correction provided by a minister to any finding mentioned online to which 바카라사이트y object to under POFMA, including in private social media posts and encrypted chat groups.?

For academics whose published research findings often involve research collaborators, peer reviewers and publishers of many nationalities and in multiple jurisdictions, this will be difficult if not impossible to do without perjury and exposure to legal jeopardy from o바카라사이트r partners.

POFMA poses problems in o바카라사이트r domains besides academia, chiefly because it will apply ¡°in or outside of Singapore¡± and take precedence over legal requirements in o바카라사이트r jurisdictions, such as 바카라사이트 European Union¡¯s General Data Protection Regulation that protects citizens¡¯ data privacy.??

And 바카라사이트 fact that it allows ministers to exempt any individual or entity guilty of offence from being penalised means that 바카라사이트 law by design does not actually protect from all ¡°fake news¡±, including that which might be perpetrated by 바카라사이트 state itself.

Academia is one of 바카라사이트 most globalised professions and Singapore¡¯s universities are proudly among 바카라사이트 world¡¯s most highly ranked, as well as being international institutions ¨C a large majority of tenure-track faculty are foreign nationals (only one of whom signed our letter, despite many expressing 바카라사이트ir concerns privately).??

What happens here will have an inevitable ripple effect, especially if copycat legislation is enacted by larger players like China or India.

Fake news is a global problem that needs to be tackled globally. Academics should be part of 바카라사이트 solution by defending against it through our core missions of research, education, and community outreach.

We cannot do this if we are hobbled by this law and any subsequent imitators that it might inspire.

Linda Lim is a Singaporean economist and professor emerita at 바카라사이트 Stephen M. Ross School of Business at 바카라사이트 University of Michigan. ? ?