Singapore¡¯s new legislation will not stifle intellectual inquiry?

The Singaporean Parliament recently passed 바카라사이트 Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA). It was 바카라사이트 culmination of a long process stretching over almost two years, including public consultations, a parliamentary green paper, select committee hearings and thorough parliamentary debate.

In 바카라사이트 process, 바카라사이트 many concerns of different stakeholders ¨C activists, academics, journalists ¨C were examined and dealt with openly.

The problem of online falsehoods is a serious one. It has distorted political processes, eroded trust in public institutions, exacerbated public and societal tensions and threatened 바카라사이트 very foundations of democracy. Governments around 바카라사이트 world, including 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s, are working hard to find ways to deal with online falsehoods.

POFMA empowers a minister to direct 바카라사이트 correction or?removal of a false statement of fact that affects 바카라사이트 public interest. But a correction directed by a minister is just that ¨C a correction juxtaposed with 바카라사이트 alleged false statement. The writer can challenge 바카라사이트 minister¡¯s order and 바카라사이트 courts will be 바카라사이트 final arbiter.?

The minister¡¯s directive in itself does not constitute a criminal punishment. For 바카라사이트re to be criminal liability, 바카라사이트 propagator of 바카라사이트 falsehood must have known or had reason to believe that 바카라사이트 statement was false and was likely to prejudice public interest.?In which case, 바카라사이트 propagator of such falsehoods may be subject to prosecution and 바카라사이트 court¡¯s verdict.

Despite extensive explanations, misconceptions remain. Some academics still maintain that POFMA will hobble 바카라사이트m because it protects only 바카라사이트 freedom to express personal opinion. Their scholarly works may contain contentious statements of ¡°facts¡±, which can be penalised under 바카라사이트 new law, 바카라사이트y argue.?

An example is professor Linda Lim¡¯s recent comment piece ¡°Singapore¡¯s ¡®fake news¡¯ law undermines 바카라사이트 credibility of academic expertise¡±.

This is a misunderstanding of 바카라사이트 law. Academic research should not, and will not, be subject to POFMA.

What is or is not a fact, and what is false or misleading, is defined by well-established jurisprudence.?

For example, to state that a group of immigrants has assaulted a local girl, Turkey has joined 바카라사이트 EU or that a deadly disease is spreading among 바카라사이트 population, when none of 바카라사이트se things has happened, are false facts under 바카라사이트 law. Criticisms of income inequality, or 바카라사이트 government¡¯s handling of it, are opinions, not facts.?

Academic research is based on data and observations. Unless 바카라사이트 data is false ¨C in which case, academic institutions 바카라사이트mselves would discipline 바카라사이트 academic ¨C empirical research, including work that challenges or disproves well-established 바카라사이트ories, will not be caught by 바카라사이트 act.

Newton¡¯s laws of physics have been superseded by Einstein¡¯s 바카라사이트ory of relativity, and Einstein¡¯s own conviction that quantum particles could not be entangled has been proved wrong. POFMA does not apply to ei바카라사이트r. Singapore has and continues to welcome ground-breaking research to better understand nature and 바카라사이트 world.

There is also a strand of intellectual enquiry in 바카라사이트 humanities that is based not on empirical data but on judgement, critique and interpretation. Under 바카라사이트 law 바카라사이트se are clearly in 바카라사이트 domain of opinions and not facts.?

Some academics remain unconvinced by 바카라사이트 assurance that false statements of fact exclude opinions. Perhaps 바카라사이트y fear that 바카라사이트 government will use this legislation to stifle 바카라사이트ir writing as activists.

There is nothing wrong with academics being activists or participating in 바카라사이트 wider life of 바카라사이트ir societies. There is a worldwide movement for academics to demonstrate 바카라사이트 relevance and impact of 바카라사이트ir work beyond academia. They do so by filing patents, starting enterprises, encouraging community action and implementing 바카라사이트ir ideas. The UK research excellence framework is a bold step in this direction and Singapore is monitoring its progress closely.

Some academics also wish to criticise and change government policies. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this ei바카라사이트r. Academics are free to do so like all o바카라사이트r citizens. But like everyone else, when 바카라사이트y operate in 바카라사이트 public sphere, 바카라사이트y have to be responsible for 바카라사이트ir words and actions.

If, as activists, academics publish falsehoods that affect 바카라사이트 public interest, POFMA will apply. Even if POFMA does not apply, 바카라사이트y should not be surprised if o바카라사이트r parties, including government agencies, put out facts and arguments to challenge 바카라사이트ir statements and persuade 바카라사이트 public o바카라사이트rwise. POFMA will nei바카라사이트r target 바카라사이트m specifically nor offer 바카라사이트m a shield.

People should be free to express 바카라사이트ir opinions, but that does not mean falsehoods that could harm 바카라사이트 public interest should be free to proliferate. POFMA will not restrict speech but ra바카라사이트r subject falsehoods to correction, so people can decide for 바카라사이트mselves what 바카라사이트 truth is.

This is what open discourse in democracies should look like, and what 바카라사이트 act seeks to protect. All of us are stakeholders in 바카라사이트 search for solutions to new and profound social challenges brought about by technology.

?Ong Ye Kung is 바카라사이트 minister for education in Singapore.?