Legal (partially private, only for registered users) > Agencies & Associations
Minlaw: Combating Online Falsehoods (aka Fake News)
ainat:
Clarification on falsehood posted by TTR on food delivery rider
Published on 17 Apr 2020
A false statement was made on The Temasek Review’s ("TTR") Facebook page on 15 April 2020, alleging that a GrabFood delivery rider was fined $300 by Police officers for wearing a cloth as a mask or for illegal parking.
Falsehood
TTR said in their post: "Grabfood delivery rider issued summon by SPF officers of fine of $300 for alleged wearing cloth as mask or illegal parking?"
This is false. The police officers were in fact rendering assistance to the delivery rider who had approached them for help. The GrabFood delivery rider had thought that items were stolen from his motorcycle and approached the Police officers for help. The Police officer in the photo of TTR’s Facebook post was actually taking a statement from the delivery rider. No summons was issued to the delivery rider, and the event had nothing to do with the circuit breaker measures or illegal parking.
Such allegations are highly irresponsible and hurt public confidence and trust in the Police. It also undermines our officers, who are at the frontlines trying to keep Singaporeans safe and secure during this challenging period. Let us stand united, instead of sowing division and discord.
Additional Clarifications
Under the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures)(Control Order) Regulations 2020, masks made of cloth and textile are permitted. We advise members of the public not to speculate and/or spread unfounded rumours. Please visit www.moh.gov.sg for updates on the COVID-19 situation.
Source: https://www.gov.sg/article/factually-clarification-on-falsehood-posted-by-ttr-on-food-delivery-rider
Reference (Temasek Review Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10157812350575783&id=190806675782&__tn__=-R
Cache: http://archive.fo/lpWRd
In a Facebook post on 15 April 2020, The Temasek Review (TTR) showed a picture of a GrabFood deliveryman and a Police officer, and suggested that the man was ‘issued summon by SPF officers of fine of $300 for alleged wearing cloth as mask or illegal parking’.
It is irresponsible of TTR to assume that the Police officer was taking enforcement action against the deliveryman, simply based on the picture.
What actually happened was that the GrabFood deliveryman had approached the Police officer for assistance, thinking that items were stolen from his motorcycle, and the officer was taking a statement from him.
Such allegations are highly irresponsible and hurt public confidence and trust in the Police. It also undermines our officers, who are at the frontlines trying to keep Singaporeans safe and secure during this challenging period. We ought to stand united, instead of sowing division and discord.
Source (SPF Facebook): https://www.facebook.com/singaporepoliceforce/posts/10159709331489408
Cache: http://archive.fo/AjV5h
ainat:
Corrections Regarding Falsehoods on the Annual Salary of Temasek Holdings Pte Ltd's Executive Director and CEO Ms Ho Ching and Additional Clarifications
False statements made on Facebook, HardwareZone Forum and The Online Citizen
9 Apr 2020
There were false statements of fact contained in a number of social media posts on Facebook and HardwareZone Forum, as well as an article on The Online Citizen website (collectively, the “Authors”) concerning the annual salary of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited’s Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer (“Temasek CEO”).
Falsehoods
The Authors made various claims that the annual salary of Temasek CEO Ms Ho Ching is “NT$ 2.1 billion”, “about 100 million SGD” or “S$99 million a year”.
All of the above claims are false. Please refer to https://www.temasek.com.sg/en/news-and-views/news-room/statements/2020/temasek-compensation-framework
Additional Clarifications
The Government does not set the remuneration of staff in Temasek; this is the responsibility of its Board and management. The Government holds the Board responsible for the long-term performance of its investments, net of expenses.
In the case of Temasek, its Board Committee, the Leadership Development and Compensation Committee (“LDCC”), is responsible for the establishment of guidelines and policies on performance measurement and compensation plans. In addition, remuneration of the Executive Directors of Temasek Holdings is approved by LDCC and endorsed by its Board.
Temasek’s remuneration framework balances reward for short-term performance and long-term value creation. This has been disclosed in Temasek’s Review since 2008. Temasek’s compensation is benchmarked to the industry and the compensation framework comprises a base salary, as well as short-term, medium-term and long-term incentives. Part of the bonuses are deferred and subject to clawback should Temasek’s returns be negative. Temasek has also publicly stated that Ms Ho Ching’s annual compensation is neither the highest within Temasek, nor is she amongst the top five highest paid executives in Temasek.
For more information on Temasek’s remuneration framework, please refer to https://www.temasekreview.com.sg/institution/instilling-ownership.html
Source: https://www.gov.sg/article/factually-corrections-on-falsehoods-on-annual-salary-of-temasek-holdings-ceo-ho-ching
Reference 1 (TOC): Taiwan news reports that Ho Ching makes S$99 million a year as Executive Director and CEO of Temasek Holdings
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2020/04/15/taiwan-news-reports-that-ho-ching-makes-s99-million-a-year-as-executive-director-and-ceo-of-temasek-holdings/
Cache 1: http://archive.fo/n6GBv
Reference 2 (Lim Tean FB): https://www.facebook.com/PeoplesVoiceSingapore/posts/2535120706756120?__tn__=-R
Cache 2: http://archive.fo/GrnV0
Reference 3 (Hardwarezone Forum): https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-16/%5Bfake-news%5D-taiwan-talk-show-expose-ho-ching-salary-nt%24-2-1-billion-6258383.html
Cache 3: http://archive.fo/5aw8i
ainat:
Parliament: About 40 instances of Covid-19 fake news debunked since start of 2020, says S. Iswaran
Mr Iswaran stressed that the Government will not hesitate to use the full force of the law against those who deliberately or maliciously spread falsehoods.
4 May 2020 | Fabian Koh
SINGAPORE - About 40 instances of speculation, rumours, scams and outright falsehoods about the coronavirus outbreak have been debunked by government agencies since January, said Minister for Communications and Information S. Iswaran on Monday (May 4).
They have spared no effort to swiftly put out the facts to dispel confusion and calm anxieties fomented by such falsehoods, he said in Parliament in his reply to Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson).
"The clarifications have been conveyed through media, on government websites, social media and the Gov.sg channel on WhatsApp and Telegram," he added.
The primary focus is to ensure that Singaporeans get accurate information in a timely manner, the minister said.
"We have also used the powers under Pofma - the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act - to require purveyors of falsehoods to place factual corrections alongside false claims.
"These actions have been against Singaporeans, here or abroad, as well as some foreign parties and websites," he added.
Mr Iswaran also said some of the actions taken in the early stages of the Covid-19 crisis have been a restraining force as it further curbs people from sharing or purveying false information.
While such misinformation still pops up from time to time, he said the Government is well equipped to deal with it.
But the Government is "not going out on the basis of trying to identify who are the purveyors on an ex ante basis", he added.
"What we do is when the false information is brought to our attention, then we take quick action."
The actions range from clarifications and correction orders under Pofma to more serious ones under Pofma, the Miscellaneous Offences Act and the Penal Code.
"Depending on the circumstances of each case and the outcomes of investigation, the Public Prosecutor will decide if more serious action needs to be taken," he said.
Mr Iswaran stressed that the Government will not hesitate to use the full force of the law against those who deliberately or maliciously spread falsehoods.
"Purveyors of falsehoods must be held accountable, but we all have a role to play in stemming the spread of false information. Especially as some may have carelessly shared misinformation.
"It is of utmost importance, especially at a time of crisis like this, that each and every one of us does the right thing by checking that the messages we receive come from reliable sources, and make the effort to verify a claim or piece of information before sharing it," he said.
Earlier on Monday, Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Home Affairs Amrin Amin told the House of the actions the Government had taken against fake messages claiming a partial lockdown in Singapore.
In his reply to Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten), he cited the case of a 40-year-old man who allegedly circulated a false message claiming he had intel that the Government would close all coffee shops and food courts, and open supermarkets only two days a week.
The man urged people to stock up on items.
On April 27, he was charged with communicating a false message under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, he added. The offence carries a jail term of up to three years, a maximum fine of $10,000, or both.
Mr Amrin said: "The police take a serious view of all reports of falsehoods regarding the Covid-19 situation, including those that claim 'partial lockdowns' as these may cause public alarm."
Read the latest on the Covid-19 situation in Singapore and beyond on our dedicated site here.
Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/parliament-about-40-instances-of-covid-19-fake-news-debunked-since-start-of-2020
ainat:
Corrections and clarifications regarding falsehoods and misleading statements by Mr Thum Ping Tjin
False and misleading statements made in a YouTube video by Mr Thum Ping Tjin
Published on 13 May 2020
1. A YouTube video by Mr Thum Ping Tjin contains several false and misleading statements.
Falsehoods
2. On 8 May 2020, Mr Thum published a YouTube video episode of The Show by PJ Thum on the New Naratif YouTube channel, claiming, amongst other things, the following.
a. Under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), the definition of “false” means that “even if one bit is found to be wrong or misleading, the whole statement can be considered false. The definition is so broad that the omission of a fact, accidentally or otherwise, is sufficient for something to be considered misleading. The problem is, it’s impossible to include every single fact about anything in the statement. You can’t! And even if you could, anyone could selectively quote it, so that what they quote is misleading. So under this law, every statement can be considered false in some way”.
b. POFMA makes all criticisms of the Government illegal.
c. There is no recourse in law for the Court to overturn a POFMA direction if it is an abuse of the powers under POFMA.
d. POFMA “means that the truth will be whatever the party says it is”.1
3. The above are false, for the following reasons:
POFMA applies only to factual statements that are false (Section 2(2) of POFMA). It does not apply to opinions. If there is a dispute as to whether the statement is false, or whether it is a statement of fact, the dispute can be determined by the Courts. Further, the whole statement will not be considered false, automatically, just because “one bit” of it is false. The Courts have, over centuries, developed criteria for assessing falsehoods. It is untrue to say that “every statement can be considered false in some way” and be subject to POFMA.
Criticisms which are opinions and not statements of fact are not covered by POFMA (Section 2(2)(a) of POFMA). Criticisms which are based on true facts, are also not covered by POFMA. POFMA only applies to falsehoods. It is untrue (and absurd) to say that POFMA makes all criticisms of the Government illegal. Before and after POFMA came into force, there have been criticisms of the Government (including by Mr Thum), on a regular basis. They have not been the subject of POFMA.
The Courts have judicial oversight of the exercise of powers under POFMA. It is therefore untrue to say that there can be no recourse in law, when there has been abuse of POFMA powers
For the above reasons, it is also false for Mr Thum to assert that POFMA “means that the truth will be whatever the party says it is.”1
4. Mr Thum also states that POFMA has been used against the “interpretation of statistical data” by the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). This is also false. The issue was not about interpretation of statistics. The SDP had made a direct, false statement. (See MOM’s clarification in the said SDP case.) SDP challenged the POFMA directions against it, and the High Court held that there was no basis for the directions to be set aside, because SDP had made false statements of fact. The High Court’s judgment is publicly available.
Additional Clarifications
5. Contrary to what Mr Thum suggests, people are free to criticise and disagree with the Government.
6. POFMA has been used to deal specifically with falsehoods, which suggested that the Government is mismanaging public funds, abusing police power, favouring foreigners over locals, and carrying out judicial executions in an unlawful, brutal manner, among others. The consequences that such falsehoods about public institutions can have on society were extensively set out in the Government’s Green Paper, the Select Committee Report, and the Second Reading speech for POFMA. Those interested can look at this material and form their own views as to whether, as Mr Thum claims, POFMA has been used in a manner inconsistent with government assurances.
7. POFMA has enabled these falsehoods to be corrected in a targeted manner. Powers under POFMA are in fact narrower than pre-existing legislation dealing with falsehoods.
8. Further, so far, the primary approach has been to issue Correction Directions under POFMA.2 Where a Correction Direction has been issued, the original article remains completely accessible. Readers can read for themselves both the primary piece and the correction, and make up their own minds. Recipients of POFMA directions who put up the Correction Notice can continue to put forward their point of view on the issue, and their original articles also remain available for anyone to read.
9. POFMA was used against COVID-19-related falsehoods in 11 of the 18 POFMA cases to date. In 7 of these cases, directions were issued within 24 hours, sometimes in a matter of hours.
10. Mr Thum states that the court process takes a long time. But, as the Government has said, POFMA’s Rules provide for the High Court hearing to be held 6 working days after the originating summons is filed in court, which is expedited, compared with the usual process which could take some months. As the Government has also said, there are no hearing fees for the first three days (if the hearing does take three days), and the Court will have the power to waive any further fees. For individuals, filing fees are lower than ordinary court fees. The Government had also explained that how long the hearing takes, and how long the Courts take to decide, are matters for the Courts; Parliament and the Executive cannot intervene in those.
11. Mr Thum also misleadingly uses a video clip of an interview with the Minister for Law to suggest that POFMA can be easily abused by a future government. He omits the first part of the Minister’s answer, which is that “first of all, there are checks… the courts have oversight of it. So there is a clear oversight mechanism (and) checks.”
12. Contrary to what Mr Thum said, the Government did not try to apply the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act retroactively in Mr Li Shengwu’s case. The substantive law applicable to the case was common law contempt, and not the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act.
13. Mr Thum claims that “past PAP governments have spread misinformation to silence critics, like in Operation Spectrum.” These are his opinions (and thus not subject to a POFMA Direction). Similar claims have been refuted elsewhere.
14. Public clarifications on POFMA have been put out by the Government, repeatedly. Yet, in the past year, Mr Thum has on multiple occasions repeated falsehoods and misleading statements similar to those in this case. He is clearly aware of what the true scope of POFMA is: when a viewer asked whether his criticisms of the government may be false, he shrugged off the suggestion, stating that “POFMA is supposed to only be used against ‘false statements of facts’,” meaning, his opinions cannot be the subject of POFMA. Thus his statements (set out in para 2 above), that POFMA can be used in respect of all statements, are entirely cynical, and he obviously knows that they are untrue.
15. Under the Correction Directions issued to Mr Thum and New Naratif, the 8 May video can remain accessible to the public. That gives the lie to any suggestion of censorship. It will allow viewers to view his video, and this statement, and reach their own conclusions.
[1] Mr Thum refers to ‘party’, presumably referring to the ruling party. The Orders under POFMA are made by the Government.
[2] Two entities have refused to comply with the Correction Directions. Accordingly, their sites were blocked. One was a person who has persistently set up various sites to purvey falsehoods, for financial gain.
Source: https://www.gov.sg/article/factually-corrections-on-falsehoods-about-pofma-by-thum-ping-tjin
Reference: https://youtu.be/AWjPx48lRVM
ainat:
Deep Learning meets Fake News
Reference 1 (Source code, Python): https://github.com/krishnaik06/Fake-New-LSTM
Reference 2 (Competition): https://www.kaggle.com/c/fake-news
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version