Under The Angsana Tree: Parliamentary committee on Fake News

Update 20 Sep 2018: Select Committee on deliberate online falsehoods: Government accepts recommendations in principle

Members of the Select Committee on deliberate online falsehoods. (Foto: Hanidah Amin)

The Government on Thursday (Sep 20) said it accepts in principle the Select Committee on deliberate online falsehoods' recommendation for a multi-pronged response to tackle the issue.

In a joint statement issued by the Ministry of Law and the Ministry of Communications and Information on Thursday evening, the Government said it would work with stakeholders to roll out "non-legislative and legislative measures recommended by the Committee over the next few months".

"These measures will be geared towards (i) nurturing an informed public, (ii) reinforcing social cohesion and trust, (iii) promoting fact-checking, (iv) disrupting online falsehoods, & (v) dealing with threats to national security and sovereignty," the Government said.

read more

Select Committee on fake news: 22 recommendations unveiled to combat online falsehoods

The Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods has made 22 recommendations as part of a swathe of countermeasures against fake news. FOTO: LIANHE ZAOBAO

A parliamentary Select Committee has called for new laws that will grant the Government powers to swiftly disrupt the spread of online falsehoods, as part of a broad suite of measures to counter the scourge of fake news.

The Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods made 22 recommendations in all, including enacting legislation, urging technology companies to take proactive steps to tackle fake content on their platforms & creating a national framework to guide public education on falsehoods.

It submitted a 176-page report to Parliament on Wednesday (Sep 19), about 5 months after it held public hearings over 8 days in March to listen to oral representations from 65 individuals and organisations.

read more

Thum Ping Tjin refutes Select Committee's assertion that he lied about academic credentials

Thum Ping Tjin said he disagrees with the Select Committee’s allegation that he misrepresented his academic credentials. (PHOTO: Screenshot from Gov.sg YouTube page)

Historian Thum Ping Tjin has refuted a parliamentary committee’s claim that he lied about his academic credentials and gave “misleading evidence” during hearings on the issue of fake news, saying that the “allegation” is untrue.

Thum said in a Facebook post on Saturday (22 September), “I completely disagree with the Report of the Select Committee’s allegation that I “clearly lied” and misrepresented my academic credentials. I will respond more fully in due course. In the meantime, I repost here statements from Oxford, along with both my submissions to the Select Committee.” The 38-year-old accompanied his post with web links to his full submissions to the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, and news reports of statements made by academics from Oxford University who attested that Thum was a qualified historian.

On Thursday (20 September) at a press conference on the release of its report and recommendations, the Select Committee said that Thum had sought to paint a picture of holding “an academic position of some seniority with Oxford University”, when this was not the case. “He was given certain privileges in return for him paying a fee to the university,” said the 10-member panel in a 13-page addendum to its report that was dedicated to the committee’s exchanges with three parties critical of its work: Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders and Thum.

read more

Pingtjin Thum 23 hrs

I completely disagree with the Report of the Select Committee’s allegation that I “clearly lied” and misrepresented my academic credentials. I will respond more fully in due course. In the meantime, I repost here statements from Oxford, along with both my submissions to the Select Committee.

http://projectsoutheastasia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/16-2018-In-Defence

http://projectsoutheastasia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Reply-to-Chong.pdf

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/pj-thum-oxford-philip-kre

https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/oxford-academics-say-thum-pi

https://medium.com/submissions-to-the-select-committee-on

https://medium.com/@pj_85357/follow-up-submission-to-the-select-com

read more

Substance of Thum Ping Tjin’s paper to the Select Committee has been overlooked by Singaporeans

In the spirit of media literacy to defend against fake news, I became curious about what PJ Thum submitted to the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods. Out of 170 papers submitted, PJ was singled out in the Select Committee’s report and in the media. The Select Committee says it gave “no weight” to PJ’s views on the basis that he lied about his academic credentials. As a discerning person trying to avoid being misled by fake news, I went to the source – PJ’s paper – so that I could decide for myself whether PJ’s views were nonsense. If so, I would know not to believe any nonsense in that paper if it arose again in future. This is PJ’s 5-page paper – the one which resulted in a six-hour cross-examination. It can be read within 10 minutes, so if you’re on the train this is an easy read.

Having actually read PJ’s paper, I can’t help but wonder:

Of all of PJ’s views in his five-page paper, the focus is on the alleged “lie” about being a research fellow instead of a visiting scholar. Why not simply point to the *substance* of his paper and criticise it? The Select Committee did precisely this in respect of another written representation: “The Committee decided not to publish the written representation by Mr Alex Tan, being of the opinion that it was not made in good faith. It contained personal insults, irrelevant comments and sarcastic proposals.” (para. 15, Report of the Select Committee). This tells us in plain words what is wrong with the substance of Mr Alex Tan’s written representation.
If the detentions under Operation Coldstore were all justified because the detainees were part of a conspiracy to subvert the government, why not say that plainly? The Select Committee’s Dr. Janil Puthucheary is particularly well-placed to speak about Operation Coldstore since his father Dominic Puthucheary was one of the detainees of Operation Coldstore.
To give no weight to PJ’s paper because of his credentials (or lack thereof) suggests that if a different person repeated the content of the paper, we can give weight to the content. This is consistent with thought #1 above. But is PJ’s real offence his forceful questioning of the true nature of Operation Coldstore?
What does the Select Committee think of the Russian MFA’s 1-page submission
Does the use of state power to whack a citizen in this ugly way trouble anyone at all? Since PJ submitted his paper to the Select Committee, he has repeatedly been attacked while the substance of his paper has been overlooked. Are these the standards of decency and debate to which a 53-year old democracy holds itself – or should we do better and look to some of the most well-paid politicians in the world to lead by showing what mature, decent and thoughtful public debate looks like? Might it not assist the Government’s case on the legitimacy of Operation Coldstore by releasing papers from 1963 – papers which are 55 years old and which are unlikely to pose any threat to national security in 2018 – so that the public can decide for itself? Do we believe that the efforts to educate a population for the past 53 years have produced a discerning and fair-minded population who could be trusted to look at the relevant documents about Coldstore, and form their own view about whether detainees were involved in a conspiracy to subvert the Government?

read more

Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods releases recommendations on how to tackle “fake news”

Parliament released the Executive Summary of the Report of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, which includes the Committee’s recommendations on how to tackle “fake news,” today. We re-publish the summary in full here:

read more

Delving into Singapore’s history

The Conundrum of Operation Coldstore

Actually I have stopped blogging since last year. Lately I have been intrigued by the persistent appeals of interested political observers to give my view on the controversial Operation Coldstore. I will make this my swan song.

I will try to give an objective view on Operation Coldstore without giving offence to any party be it the powers-that-be or the opposition. The bombastic submission on Operation Coldstore by the authentic reputed Oxford Historian Dr. Thum Ping Tjin to the Select Committee on deliberate falsehoods has created an unprecedented uproar to the members of the Select Committee as well as the public .Dr. Thum's submission seems to lack objectivity by presenting only one side of the picture without the opportunity of having the insight of the deliberations and discussions of the Internal Security Council (ISC) comprising Malaysian and British representatives which gave the approval to PM Lee Kuan Yew to proceed with Operation Coldstore. What the ISC discussed was top secret and not privy to the public. So it remained a secret how Lee Kuan Yew had been able to convince the ISC with his eloquence to give him the approval. Members of the ISC were not guillible people who could be easily persuaded.

That Operation Coldstore was mounted against the leaders of the Communist United Front ostensibly to pre-empt them from seizing power was never in doubt but that it had also helped Lee Kuan Yew in consolidating his position against his political opponents cannot be dismissed as a fact. Some of those detained can be described dyed-in-the-wool subversives but it cannot be denied that some may be less implicated. The fact that Dr. Thum Ping Tjin is an authentic reputed Oxford Historian can never be detracted by any amount of denigration by any party though there was no lack of such attempts as seen in his six-hour questioning in the Select Committee. The Operation Coldstore controversy will go on indefintely because there can never be a definitive conclusion to it.

read more

Ex-ISA detainee Poh Soo Kai responds to K Shanmugam: Coldstore was politically motivated

'If you do not know your history you would be like monkeys amok and running in the dark.'

Chances are, even if you don’t really follow politics, you might have heard about the six-hour grilling session between Minister for Law and Home Affairs K Shanmugam and historian Thum Ping Tjin.

The session, held in the last week of March, as well as its ensuing discussion, triggered a video response from ex-political detainee and former assistant secretary-general of the Barisan Sosialis party Poh Soo Kai, who “challenged the assertion” that Operation Coldstore was conducted on grounds of national security.

Poh was one of more than 100 people detained under Operation Coldstore in 1963. Later on, he was detained again, under the Internal Security Act (ISA) in 1976 and 1982.

read more

Function 8 15 April at 05:48

This is Dr Poh Soo Kai’s response to Minister K Shanmugam’s claim that Operation Coldstore was mounted on grounds of “national security” at the hearing before the Parliamentary Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods on 29 March 2018.

DR POH SOO KAI - The Singapore Law Minister recently crossed swords with historian P J Thum in a six-hour long interrogation of the latter. The Law Minister justified Operation Coldstore on grounds of national security. In other words, that my colleagues and I in the Barisan Sosialis were a threat to national security. I want to challenge this assertion.

WHAT IS NATIONAL SECURITY - I am saddened that educated persons of the younger generation talk about historical events like Operation Coldstore without situating it in its particular historical context.

read more

Can Dr Janil Puthucheary tell us if his father was a communist?

I am sure Dr Janil Puthucheary knows as many victims of Operation Coldstore as me because his father Mr Dominic Puthucheary and uncle, the late Mr James Puthucheary were also victims.

I do not know if Dominic Puthucheary was a communist who believed in violence and admits that he was rightly imprisoned in 1963.

All the victims I know and these include the late Dr Lim Hock Siew, A Mahadeva and Pak Said Zahari, and those who are active today like Dr Poh Soo Kai do not admit that they were or are communists. They spent years in prison, much longer than Dominic Puthucheary who I understand was booted out of Singapore shortly after his arrest. They say that they were and are socialists and anti colonialists. They wanted to rid the British from Malaya and that was why they helped found the PAP.

read more

ISA Detainee Teo Soh Lung Publicly Challenges Dr Janil Puthucheary

Can Dr Janil Puthucheary tell us if his father was a communist and hence by his logic, a terrorist in 1963? As Singapore citizens we have a right to know from our politicians the truth of Operation Coldstore. His sharing of his father's belief and actions will help us understand our history and the perpetual need to use the ISA.

Dr Janil Puthucheary should not make light of the years of sacrifice of the victims of Operation Coldstore by his essay, "History is not the preserve of historians" in The Straits Times. He should not undermine the sacrifices of his late uncle James Puthucheary who was detained in 1951 and again for three years in 1956 before Operation Coldstore. I firmly believe that his uncle was a true Nationalist, totally committed to an independent Malaya which includes Singapore and not a communist or a terrorist.

All detainees deserve a fair and open trial. If the PAP have evidence against the detainees of Operation Coldstore, they should have been tried in open court back in 1963. The PAP and Dr Janil Puthucheary should explain to the people of Singapore why they, his uncle and father were deprived of a fair trial.

read more

History is not the preserve of historians

Dr Thum is an activist, as much as he may be a scholar, as is evident from his online writings. He could have applied himself solely to peer-reviewed historical research, & measured his success on the basis of what academics might have said of his work.

But Dr Thum the activist chose to make a submission to Parliament, asserting that the main sources of fake news in Singapore over almost 60 years have been the Government of Singapore & Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

He alleged that Mr Lee had lied about Operation Coldstore & that the authorities then had no good security reasons for the arrests that were conducted.

read more

The thumping of PJ Thum

I had wondered how the parliamentary Select Committee would respond to the academics’ petition about their colleague, Dr P J Thum. When the riposte came, I was somewhat surprised at the accusations. They were about how Dr Thum and his fellow academic, Dr Philip Kreager, were “subverting the parliamentary processes’’ of a sovereign nation.

What were the accusations based on?

Dr Thum had “input’’ in the statement drafted by Project Southeast Asia as well as the open letter signed by academics round the word. Both had called for an apology from the committee for maligning his credentials and his work. Dr Thum is the Project’s “co-ordinator’, while Dr Kreager is the chairman. Dr Kreager was also shown to be actively lobbying on Dr Thum’s behalf.
Both men are also the only two directors of Observatory Southeast Asia UK Ltd, which had received US$75,000 in funding from an entity connected to Mr George Soros, the billionaire financier who has a penchant for interfering in the affairs of other countries. The company, which the G claims has a political agenda, had tried unsuccessfully to set up a Singapore branch. Hence, they were not just academic colleagues but business partners and political activists as well.
Given the similarity between the statement and the online petition that secured the signatures of 280 academics round the world, Mr Charles Chong, who chairs the select committee, implied that the petition was authored by Dr Thum or Dr Kreager or both. In other words, it wasn’t a spontaneous academic outpouring of support for Dr Thum’s “battle against parliamentarians in an ex-colony’’.

read more

Truths, half-truths and the Singapore story

Historian Thum Ping Tjin (right) speaking to reporters after attending a hearing headed by the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods on 29 March 2018. Photo: Nicholas Yong/Yahoo News Singapore

The Select Committee probing the vexatious issue of deliberate online falsehoods must have a lot to chew on. Not just on the 170 submissions and answers from the 65 witnesses who spent more than 50 hours under the spotlight, some of them facing a public grilling not seen in Singapore politics in a long while.

What stole the spotlight was Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam’s interrogation of at least two of the witnesses, Facebook’s Simon Milner and historian Thum Ping Tjin. Enjoying every bit of his inquisitor-in-chief role, Shanmugam was very much in the driver’s seat with nobody in the panel, not even chairman Charles Chong, wanting to step in, thus leaving a sour taste in many Singaporeans’ mouths.

For all that has been said and done since 1990, when then-Prime Minister Goh Chock Tong spoke of moving away from a society that had been brow-beaten into submission by his predecessor Lee Kuan Yew, those two interrogations must have been, to put it mildly, one big disappointment. Welcome to the new-old Singapore where the rules of engagement, especially political engagement, are still stuck in the mire of what should have been a bygone era.

read more

Maruah slams Select Committee’s ‘confrontational stance’

Maruah's Ngiam Shih Tung, Terry Xu and Howard Lee of The Online Citizen and freelance journalist Kirsten Han attend the hearing on Deliberate Online Falsehood. foto: Gov.Sg

A day after several civil activists criticised the Select Committee for the way it conducted the public hearings on deliberate online falsehoods, human rights group Maruah voiced similar concerns on Tuesday (Apr 3) about the aggressive and "confrontational" approach adopted by the committee.

In a press statement, the group said the public hearings were "akin to being in a courtroom", where the committee acted in an "unnecessarily disrespectful manner" towards witnesses, and was at times patronising & discriminatory.

"Incidentally no witness in these hearing sessions is an accused party to any wrongdoing on 'falsehoods'," said Maruah, adding that any wrongdoing on the part of the witnesses could be "ascertained through a non-Parliamentary mechanism".

read more

MARUAH’s Statement on the Select Committee and on the Discussions on Deliberate Online Falsehoods

MARUAH, a human rights organization, thanks the Select Committee for the time given to this process, and to the staff of Parliament for their effort in administering to the hearings.

We issue a statement here that deals with two main areas:

Part A: The Select Committee’s Conduct;
Part B - Reflections on the Discussions on Deliberate Online Falsehoods (DOFs)

We also like to put on record our misgivings on the proceedings of the Select Committee as carried out when MARUAH was a witness1 and when we were observers at the hearings. We express our dissatisfaction at the modus operandi and the approach that the Committee took on when it came to the hearings from some civil society actors, online media practitioners, technology providers, academics. There were instances of aggression and a confrontational stance that underpinned the approach taken for these witnesses. We believe in a non-confrontational approach to each other and accept challenges – even if they were terse - on the submissions made. But what we observed on March 27th and March 29th, the Committee was unrelentingly adverse to these particular witnesses.

read more

Select Committee hearings slammed for misquoting attendees, being hardly consultative

A group of activists in Singapore have issued a lengthy missive on Monday, April 2, 2018 to slam the parliamentary committee hearings

According to the complaint by leading activists in Singapore who attended the Select Committee on deliberate online falsehoods hearings to give oral evidence, the proceedings did not feel like a genuine attempt to solicit views and have even produced inaccurate quotations and perspectives attributed to the attendees. Those who signed off include non-governmental organisation Community Action Network, civil society group Function 8, historian Thum Ping Tjin, freelance journalist Kirsten Han and The Online Citizen‘s chief editor Terry Xu.

The activists said in a joint statement that despite engaging in good faith, they were “harangued, harassed, threatened and misrepresented”. The statement said: “Numerous leading questions were asked. Members of the Select Committee repeatedly insisted on yes or no answers to their questions, despite repeatedly being told of the importance of context and nuance.”

There were four main gripes laid out in the statement:

The Select Committee did not adhere to its own Terms of Reference
The Select Committee did not appear to be interested in soliciting views
Articles were presented and selectively quoted in ways that were sometimes misleading
Following appearances before the Select Committee, some submissions were grossly misrepresented within the official Summary of Evidence

read more

Another Complaint Filed against Fake News Committee Report’s “Gross Misrepresentation”

Social activist Jolovan Wham has filed a complaint against a report published by the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, for what he feels is a “gross misrepresentation” of his statements at the hearing on Tuesday (27 Mar).

Wham is the second person to file a complaint alleging misrepresentation by the Select Committee, following alternative news journalist Kirsten Han.

Wham has public shared his email to PAP MP Charles Chong, who chairs the Select Committee.

related: Fake News Committee Accused of Dragging its Feet on Journalist’s Formal Complaint

read more

Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods Summary of Evidence – 27 March 2018 (Day 6)

This is a summary of the evidence from Professor Hany Farid, Mr Benjamin Ang, Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim, Roses of Peace (represented by Mr Nadim Kapadia, Mr Jonathan Tan and Mr Mohamed Irshad), Mr Hazrul Jamari, National Library Board (represented by Ms Wai Yin Pryke, Ms Chow Wun Han and Ms Sara Pek]), Professor Cherian George, The Online Citizen (represented by Mr Terry Xu), Mr Howard Lee, Maruah (represented by Mr Ngiam Shih Tung), Ms Kirsten Han and Community Action Network (represented by Mr Jolovan Wham).

read more

Fighting fake news: The G should leave MSM alone

In my past life in the mainstream media, my old boss used to tell us journalists that “we are not pro-government, we are pro-Singapore’’. That’s the answer we should give to accusations that we are merely government mouthpieces or propagandists. It sounds reasonable, until you hear the government’s counter which has been trotted out since the days of Lee Kuan Yew: Who decides on what is in Singapore’s interest? The media or the elected government of the day?

It’s hard to argue against this line, especially since our media landscape is very unlike those in other countries, including Asian ones. They have many players; we have only two. Elsewhere, you can turn to well-resourced media outlets that are ranged along an ideological spectrum, or even owned by various political parties. You decide which is closest to your truth – and can switch to another if you lose faith.

Here, we have only two, Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp, both with online appendages.

read more

The Hard Man of Singapore Politics

According to his second wife Seetha, a clinical psychologist, Shanmugam is “shy and introverted.” And even in the midst of testy exchanges with critics and opponents, he manages to wear a smile

To say that K Shanmugam wields far-reaching influence is an understatement. He is a mover and shaker who pulls the strings, calls the shots and makes things happen.

Shanmugam is conduit, conductor, mastermind, knuckle duster and sledgehammer all rolled in one. Has there ever been a cabinet Minister as powerful as him?

He in the thick of the taking down of anyone deemed to have gotten out of line, whether from within or outside the establishment. He is quick to rattle the Opposition whenever it dares to make any incursions or insinuations.

read more

Shanmugam reiterates why he got tough on PJ Thum. Sonny Liew & Alfian Sa’at join chat

Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam has reiterated on Monday, April 2 why he had to ask tough questions of historian Thum Ping Tjin:

Shanmugam wrote in a Facebook post four days after his six-hour Select Committee hearing marathon session:

“PJ’s main point… was that Mr Lee Kuan Yew was the biggest creator of fake news in Singapore, a liar, and Operation Coldstore was based on falsehoods.”
“These are serious allegations made in Parliament about our founding PM.”
“Either they have to be accepted, or shown to be untrue. Keeping quiet about them was not an option.”

read more

Here’s an ASMR version of Minister Shanmugam’s debate with PJ Thum because why not

The world of autonomous sensory meridian response (ASMR) and the contentious six-hour grilling of historian Thum Ping Tjin by Law Minister K Shanmugam comes together in one unlikely, absurd union.

Enjoy the experience of the tingles and low-grade euphoria produced by the little breaths, gulps, whispers, lip-smacking and exasperated sighs coming from both parties during their long, drawn-out debate about Singapore’s history during the final public hearing for the Select Committee on deliberate online falsehoods last Thursday.

ASMR is the tingling sensation people get through the back of their heads and spines from receiving close personal attention, like getting a haircut or getting a doctor’s checkup for example. It’s deeply relaxing to many, resulting in the trend of YouTubers using high-end 3D microphones to gently whisper nothings, tapping various things, sipping water, crinkling paper and more to produce hypnotic sounds.

read more

Calvin Cheng On The Case of Shanmugam v. Thum

Cheng started off his post by explaining that despite his friendship with Thum, he had no qualms about being objective in his opinions. He then went on to outline three points; Thum’s academic credentials, interrogation about Operation Coldstore and if Minister Shanmugam’s interrogation constituted bullying.

During Thum’s Select Committee hearing, there were instances of comments made by Minister Shanmugam on the former’s credentials such as,

“Sitting there as a historian who has done detailed work in this area, you do not off the top of your head remember anything that suggests that Eu Chooi Yip and Chin Peng discussed and agreed to plan to sabotage the Malaysia plan?”

And, “you are someone who has done detailed research and work in this field, and I would have thought a plan by the Communist Party of Malaya to sabotage the Malaysia plan would have been something very significant that a historian will remember, but we will take it that you don’t, and we will move on”

read more

Select Committee concludes hearings on fake news after 8 sessions marked by tense exchanges

The committee received a total of 170 written representations

The final Select Committee hearing on deliberate online falsehoods ended on Thursday (Mar 29), with Deputy Speaker & the committee’s chairman Charles Chong describing it as having “extensive involvement & robust engagement” in his closing remarks.

Over 8 days in the past 3 weeks, 65 individuals and organisations from diverse backgrounds appeared before the 10-member parliamentary committee to present their views. The participants included representatives from media companies and technology firms, members of civil society groups, local & overseas academics, as well as students.

The longest session occurred on Tuesday, stretching from 10am to nearly 10pm, with the hearing dominated by a debate between panellists and the representatives of non-mainstream media and local rights groups. But the longest segment occurred on the final day, with Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam crossing swords with historian Thum Ping Tjin.

related: Historian Thum Ping Tjin, Shanmugam cross swords on Spore's communism-related past

read more

Minister grills researcher, says he is not an objective historian

Research fellow Thum Ping Tjin at the hearing yesterday, which lasted nearly 6 hours. In a 2013 paper, he argues that there is no evidence that Operation Coldstore detainees were involved in any violent communist conspiracy to overthrow the Singapore Government - a view countered by Law & Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam yesterday. FOTO: GOV.SG

Law & Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam spent close to 6 hours yesterday mounting a case that research fellow Thum Ping Tjin had fallen short of the standards of an objective historian when he accused the People's Action Party of using fake news to detain political opponents.

In particular, he grilled Dr Thum on a research paper he had written about the historical circumstances surrounding the 1963 Operation Coldstore, when more than 100 leftist politicians & unionists were arrested and detained.

Dr Thum, who was speaking at the Select Committee hearings on deliberate online falsehoods, contends there is no evidence the detainees were involved in any violent communist conspiracy to overthrow the Singapore Government.

related: 7 themes from 8 days of public hearings on deliberate online falsehoods

read more

Shanmugam, historian Thum Ping Tjin spar over communist activities in 1950s-1960s

The final day of the Select Committee hearings on Deliberate Online Falsehoods turned into a wide-ranging history lesson on Singapore and Malaysia in the 1950s and 1960s, as Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam and historian Thum Ping Tjin sparred on Thursday (29 March) over the exact nature of communist activities in the two countries during the tumultuous period.

In a marathon session in Parliament House that went on for almost six hours and often got testy, seminal events such as the Hock Lee Bus riots and the Malayan Emergency were referenced, as well as communist leaders Chin Peng and Fong Chong Pik and the late Singapore prime minister Lee Kuan Yew and former Barisan Sosialis leader Lim Chin Siong.

In his submission to the Committee, Thum asserted that fake news has not had much of an impact in Singapore, with one major exception: the “falsehoods” that the People’s Action Party (PAP) used to justify the detentions of thousands under the Internal Security Act from 1963 to 1987.

related: Activist Han Hui Hui ejected from Select Committee hearings

read more

Law Minister Shanmugam and historian Thum Ping Tjin clash over Operation Coldstore, Hock Lee bus riots for 6 hours

Historian Dr Thum Ping Tjin found himself embroiled in a heated exchange with Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam over Operation Coldstore and the Hock Lee bus riots, as he appeared before the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods on the final day of hearings yesterday to deliver his testimony.

The Minister grilled Dr Thum for almost six hours on his views on a variety of issues, besides questioning Dr Thum’s suggestion that there are no examples of fake news which have had a major impact on Singapore offline, with one exception.

The historian had elaborated in his written submission to the Select Committee that, “There is clear source of ‘fake news’ which has spread falsehoods, with major impact, and hitherto escaped sanction. That is the politicians of Singapore’s People’s Action Party.”

read more

Why historian PJ Thum was Shanmugamed for nearly 6 hours

In future, a term will be added to the Singapore political lexicon

The purpose of being invited to speak at the Select Committee hearing was to present oral evidence. With Thum declaring that PAP politicians were a “clear source” of “fake news”, he would have to present evidence to back up his claim to the committee – which of course includes lawyer-by-training Shanmugam.

The crux of the six-hour exchange was this – Thum had to prove there was no communist conspiracy to overthrow the Government in Singapore, and hence substantiate his point that PAP politicians spread fake news, and Shanmugam, as part of the Select Committee, had to make sure Thum’s assertions were rock solid.

The exchange saw Shanmugam asking Thum why he left out evidence by prominent communist leaders which would at least have raised the possibility of a communist plot to overthrow the Singapore Government. Thum said that he “can’t possibly account for every single source that ever existed anywhere” and his focus was on “making a coherent argument and proving (his) arguments.” The official videos of the hearing, totalling more than 5 hours of footage, have been released in four parts (here, here, here and here).

read more

Scholar from Oxford and Harvard University: PAP Politicians are the Worst Fake New Perpetrators

The definition of deliberate online falsehoods (or “fake news”) is extremely ambiguous. Sources are difficult to trace, difficult to prosecute, and domestic legislation will not stop foreign actors outside of Singapore. There is a surfeit of laws in Singapore which suppress free speech, and new legislation is not necessary as there is already existing legislation which can address “fake news”. Most of all, “fake news” has not, historically, had much of an impact in Singapore — with one major exception: the People’s Action Party government has, historically, spread “fake news” for narrow party-political gain. Given these problems, any solution to the problem of “fake news” must therefore start with the education of Singaporeans to be more skeptical of all information, regardless of source; the diversification of responsible news sources; and greater transparency in government and accountability for those in official positions.

Accordingly, the chief measures recommended to combat “fake news” are:

The focusing of media literacy education on teaching Singaporeans to understand how the information industry works, to be politically aware, and to be skeptical of all information, regardless of source;
The repeal of the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act 1974, and reform/repeal of other laws which suppress free speech;
A Freedom of Information Act which automatically declassifies all government documents after 25 years unless they are specifically retained; and,
The establishment of an independent government watchdog (Ombudsman) with the authority to investigate complaints against the government and censure government officials who mislead the public.

read more

Blogger Han Hui Hui removed from Select Committee hearing after disrupting proceedings

Blogger Han Hui Hui was seen holding up a stack of papers with an image of a book cover printed on it

Blogger Han Hui Hui was on Thursday (Mar 29) removed from a public hearing by the Select Committee on deliberate online falsehoods.

She held up a stack of papers, prompting a security officer to ask her to leave the room.

According to Shawn Danker, a photographer who attended the public hearing, the stack of papers had the image of a book cover printed on it, which read: "Authoritarian Rule of Law: Legislation, Discourse & Legitimacy in Singapore."

read more

Han Hui Hui Displays Poster of Book by Shanmugam’s Ex-Wife, Gets Dragged Out of Fake News Committee Hearing

Political activist and one-time General Election candidate Han Hui Hui was dragged out a hearing on fake news chaired by a government Select Committee this afternoon.

This, after she was seen holding up what appeared to be a poster of a cover of a book – “Authoritarian Rule of Law – Legislation, Discourse and Legitimacy in Singapore”.

The book is written by Jothie Rajah, the ex-wife of Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam, who is part of the Select Committee and was in chambers at the time.

read more

Singapore Looks To Tighten Screws on ‘Fake News’

The government of Singapore, which has some of the most stringent controls on freedom of the press outside of North Korea, is holding an eight-day parliamentary committee hearing into “deliberate online falsehoods,” or fake news.

The hearing, which commenced on March 14 and is scheduled to end on March 29, is said to be “looking at ways Singapore can thwart deliberate online falsehoods.” Officials say the government intends to formulate new legislation in the coming weeks after the hearings are completed.

And, while no law has been suggested yet, the prospect has alarmed major multinational technology companies including Apple, Facebook and Google. The Asia Internet Coalition, which also includes Linked-In, Expedia, Yahoo and others, has urged the government to allow the industry to police itself in coordination with local law enforcement without resorting to new legislation. That is unlikely.

read more

How will Singapore solve its problem with fake news

Fake news threatens the social harmony in ASEAN. Singapore is particularly at risk. The government seeks a solution

Singapore is looking at ways to counter the online ‘fake news’ epidemic. The city-state launched public hearings to explore legislation to tackle the issue. A 10-person parliamentary committee will hear from 164 people. Among the 164 are academics, social media professionals and activists. Parliamentary deputy speaker Charles Chong will chair the committee. The committee will present its findings later this year.

Singapore has also been affected. In 2015, a false story stoked ethnic tensions. It claimed a Filipino family caused a commotion during Thaipusam celebrations. The story prompted a xenophobic backlash against the Filipino community online.

As a financial hub, Singapore is particularly at risk. Fake news about a crash in a market could prompt an actual market crash. The spread of fake news in the financial sector would have very severe repercussions.

read more

How Singaporeans can spot fake news and stop it

Unless you’ve been deprived of Internet access for the past week, you’d know that a Select Committee has been appointed to tackle online fake news in Singapore.

All 80 Members of Parliament, including opposition MPs and Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs), voted to carry the motion tabled by Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam on Jan 10.

Called the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, it is tasked with examining and reporting on the causes and consequences of online falsehoods, and to propose countermeasures, which could include legislation where necessary.

read more

Singapore launches public hearings on 'fake news'

Singapore on Wednesday, March 14 launched public hearings on possible legislation to combat "fake news" which critics said could be used to curtail free speech

A 10-member parliamentary committee was set up in January to tackle false online information which the government says could threaten national security. (WATCH: Senate hearing on fake news online in PH) The wealthy city-state is among the countries looking to introduce legislation to rein in fake news but critics have cautioned this could be used to exert further control over the media.

Some 164 people have written to the committee, including academics, technology and social media companies such as Facebook and Google, and civil activists to give their inputs.

read more

Deliberate fake news doesn't warrant protection: Law prof

Deliberate online falsehoods harm society and undermine democracy, and belong to a category of speech that does not warrant protection, constitutional law expert Thio Li-ann said yesterday.

In fact, the spread of disinformation impedes public debate and destroys the very reason for free speech itself, she added. Professor Thio was giving her views at the Select Committee hearings on online untruths, particularly how its regulation can affect free speech.

She said it is misleading to approach the regulation of deliberate online falsehoods simply as a limitation on free speech. Describing it as a complex issue, she said speech is a means to an end, and the reason to safeguard it is to protect the free and open political debate that is at the core of democratic society.

read more

Are Singapore’s fake news public hearings a waste of time?

Singapore’s Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods have concluded hearing testimonies from the public.

It is tempting to dismiss the proceedings as a prelude to new laws against free speech online. But it is more profitable to suss out the complexities, competing agendas, inconsistencies, and blind spots that arise from select committee hearings even as the committee balances its fact-finding function with its practical role in parliamentary decision-making and consensus-building.

In other words, ignoring a select committee’s public hearings is an indicator of political illiteracy.

read more

Why Singapore’s moves to curb ‘fake news’ may backfire

Singapore is an island nation that has effectively been a single-party state for decades

While President Trump liberally applies the label “fake news” to any reporting he wants to discredit, other authoritarian governments have weaponized the term as an opportunity to suppress civil society. Using “fake news,” they create narratives to justify creating more tools of control and oppression, at the expense of trust-building and openness, two crucial elements in fighting the spread of disinformation.

In Singapore, the government frames the issue as one of vulnerability and security. “Fake news” was included in a five-part television series on national-security threats, alongside lone-wolf attacks, cyberterrorism and chemical attacks.

“Disinformation can destroy lives, disrupt the economy and damage our collective identity as a nation,” warned the Ministry of Home Affairs in a post on its website to accompany an episode of the broadcast.

read more

Human Rights Watch 'biased' and 'untruthful': Singapore

Singapore is among several countries looking at legislation to rein in fake news but critics have cautioned this could be used to curb free speech. The government has denied it is trying to restrict free speech

Singapore on Friday slammed Human Rights Watch for a "pattern of issuing biased and untruthful statements" about the city-state as the government mulled new laws to fight fake news. The Ministry of Law zeroed in on a report by the New York-based HRW last year which said that while the financial hub was an economic success, it was time to relax tough regulations which are not in line with international human rights standards.

The rights group said harsh laws in Singapore were stifling free speech and had been used more frequently in recent times.

read more

Human Rights Watch issues response to Singapore government on Select Committee hearings

PAP Policy Forum at the Select Committee hearing to criticise the findings of HRW

Response issued by Human Rights Watch, international human rights non-government organisation towards criticism made against its report published in 2017 and its "failure" to turn up at the Select Committee's hearing to defend its report.

On October 30, 2017, Human Rights Watch sent a letter to four senior members of Singapore’s government requesting their input and response to the findings of our research for our 133-page report, “‘Kill the Chicken to Scare the Monkeys’: Suppression of Free Expression and Assembly in Singapore.” The report analyzes the laws and regulations used by the Singapore government to suppress the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly, including the Public Order Act, the Sedition Act, the Broadcasting Act, various penal code provisions, and laws on criminal contempt. The letter, a copy of which is included in an appendix of the report, was sent to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Minister for Home Affairs K. Shanmugam, Minister for Communications and Information Yaacob Ibrahim, and Minister for Foreign Affairs Vivian Balakrishnan. Human Rights Watch received no response by the time of publication of the report on December 13, 2017. We still have not received a response.

As the government has not disputed our factual findings and has not replied to our recommendations, which were offered in good faith to promote and protect free expression and peaceful assembly in Singapore, it is both ironic and absurd that the Ministry of Law and members of the ruling People’s Action Party are now accusing Human Rights Watch of being unwilling to defend our report.

The Singapore parliament invited Human Rights Watch to give evidence about “Deliberate Online Falsehoods.” Human Rights Watch has no staff based in Singapore. We offered to send the relevant staff member on a particular date, but the committee did not confirm a date that could work for our staff until after we had made other commitments. As we said in our response to parliament, we look forward to reading any submissions and will respond if we think it is necessary and appropriate. To date, no submission has raised any serious question about our factual findings. We have also offered to meet with government officials in Singapore or elsewhere, or relevant parliamentarians, at a mutually convenient date to discuss the report.

read more

HRW: Select Committee’s actions clearly an effort to discredit critics of Singapore’s repressive policies and practices related to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly

Statement issued by Human Rights Watch, an international human rights non-government organisation, on Select Committee’s message on 27 March

“When first contacted by the parliamentary committee, we offered to rearrange our schedule to have the relevant staff member appear in person, but the committee did not respond with a workable date until it was too late to do so. The committee’s actions since, however, have made it clear that this is not a serious and good faith effort to discuss the findings of our December 2017 report or to get our input into dealing with online falsehoods in a manner consistent with international law.

Instead, it is clearly an effort to discredit critics of Singapore’s repressive policies and practices related to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly. It is hard to see how we can have a fruitful discussion of the report and related issues when committee members and the Ministry of Law have already issued distorted and misleading comments. We have therefore reluctantly come to the conclusion that these hearings are not a true consultation on how best to deal with “fake news,” but a media event aimed to showcase those who agree with the government’s views and criticize those who do not.

We repeat our request that the government respond to our October 2017 letters to the Prime Minister and other ministers requesting comments on our research findings.

read more

New, 'prescriptive' laws not the ideal solution against online falsehoods: Social media, Internet giants in written submissions

Representatives of Google, Twitter, Facebook and industry association Asia Internet Coalition at the public hearing by the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods on Mar 22, 2018

In addressing the issue of fake news, new prescriptive laws are not an ideal solution, according to industry association Asia Internet Coalition (AIC), whose members include social media companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter. Instead, a “stringent self-regulatory approach”, executed in coordination and cooperation with the authorities, will have a better outcome.

The association made this point in its written representation to the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods. It gave oral evidence to the committee on Thursday (Mar 22), together with representatives from Google, Facebook and Twitter.

Explaining its rationale, AIC’s managing director Jeff Paine said in his written representation that prescriptive legislation will not adequately address the issue effectively, due to the highly subjective, nuanced and difficult task of discerning whether information is true or false.

read more

Facebook grilled by Singapore lawmakers on Cambridge Analytica during tense parliamentary session

Representatives from Google, Facebook and Twitter at the the parliamentary session. Photo: Screengrab from CNA

Singapore’s Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods convened on Thursday to hear representatives from Google, Facebook and Twitter give oral evidence during one of the parliamentary sessions on how they are combating fake news.

The tech giants, together with industry association Asia Internet Coalition, in their written representation to the committee before the session, had stated that they firmly do not believe that legislation by governments will help stop the spread of fake news.

Instead, according to Channel NewsAsia, they called for a stringent self-regulatory approach, executed in coordination and cooperation with the authorities to fight the bad actors who intend to spread misinformation.

read more

K Shanmugam presses Facebook on lack of transparency over Cambridge Analytica saga

Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam questioned Facebook in Parliament on Thursday (22 March) on why the social media giant had not been open when it first found out about a massive breach of its user data arising from the Cambridge Analytica (CA) saga.

Shanmugam’s pointed questions directed at Simon Milner, Facebook’s vice-president of public policy for Asia-Pacific, during the hearing for the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods come after media reports in the past week revealed that personal data of 50 million Facebook users were obtained by CA, a UK analytics firm, in part to help Donald Trump in his 2016 US presidential election campaign.

In 2014, CA hired a researcher, Aleksandr Kogan, to gather basic profile information of Facebook users along with what they chose to “Like.” Some 270,000 Facebook users downloaded Kogan’s app and the researcher was able to collect data of 50 million people

read more

Tech giants express concern over Singapore plan to fight fake news

Global tech giants including Facebook and Twitter on Thursday expressed concern about a possible Singapore plan to bring in a new law to tackle the threat of fake news, saying sufficient rules are already in place.

Officials of Facebook, Twitter and Google attended a parliamentary hearing on how to counter the threat that Singapore said it was particularly vulnerable to due to its size, its role as a global financial hub and its ethnic and religious mix. They were among 79 people asked to speak in parliament over the eight days set for the hearing.

The wealthy city state is among the countries looking to introduce legislation, so far unspecified, to rein in fake news, a trend that has stirred concern that such laws could be used to exert government control over the media.

read more

Facebook, Google warn Singapore against 'fake news' law

Internet giants Facebook and Google on Thursday warned Singapore against introducing new laws to combat "fake news", saying that existing legislation is adequate to address the problem.

Their warnings were made to a parliamentary committee which is examining possible measures, including legislation, to tackle false online information which the government says could threaten national security.

Executives from Facebook, Google and Twitter appeared before the committee Thursday, and are among scores of experts, academics and activists called to testify over eight days.

read more

Facebook: We delete falsehoods, not alleged falsehoods

In a response to state media Straits Times over their decision to decline Singapore’s request to ban States Times Review, a Facebook spokesperson clarified that the social media company deletes only proven falsehoods, not alleged falsehoods:

“We have a responsibility to handle any government request to restrict alleged misinformation carefully and thoughtfully, and that this is consistent with its approach to government requests elsewhere. Facebook does not have a policy that prohibits alleged falsehoods, apart from in situations where this content has the potential to contribute to imminent violence or physical harm.”

Singapore’s independent news blog States Times Review was threatened by the Singapore government after it publishes an article pointing out the “secret deals” between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and former Malaysian PM Najib Razak.

read more

Here’s Why We Refused To Take Down A Post Linking PM Lee To 1MDB Corruption

Ms Monika Bickert, vice-president of Facebook’s product policy division, said that under its existing policy, Facebook will remove inaccurate information circulating on its platform only if it leads to voter suppression or poses a threat of imminent violence. She gave her feedback while attending the first-ever forum in Asia-Pacific on Facebook’s community standards in Singapore

What this means is there are basically three main categories of content that could possibly violate Facebook standards – hate speech, adult nudity, and dangerous individuals and organisations (terrorism propaganda). Obviously the article published by States Times Review cannot be considered as a violation of adult nudity or terrorism propaganda.

That would leave the article to hate speech. Even then, Facebook’s hate speech is defined as a direct attack on people based on nine protected characteristics, which include national origin, sexual orientation and caste. Therefore, Facebook could not entertain Singapore’s request to bring down the post criticizing – even accusing – PM Lee of corruption.

At the media session, Ms Bickert also reiterated that Facebook does not have a wholesale policy of removing false content because it would be extremely hard to police whether a specific piece of information is true or false. Furthermore, a private company such as Facebook is in no position to determine whether the content is true or otherwise.

read more

Singapore government casts doubts over social media firms in fighting fake news

Facebook’s conduct in its data scandal involving Cambridge Analytica has cast doubt over the Singapore government over whether or not the former can be trusted to cooperate in the fight against online falsehoods.

This was revealed by Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam (pictured) in Parliament yesterday, and saw the minister expressing that Facebook had fallen short in its claimed standards of transparency in handling the incident and user data, a ST report said.

The Select Committee hearing on deliberate online falsehoods saw the attending of tech giants such as Facebook, Google and Twitter. Representatives from the tech companies were grilled on their track records, statements and actions by the committee, in a bid to establish their reliability as partners in fighting fake news.

read more

Minister Shanmugam Turns The Heat Up On Facebook At Fake News Hearing

“This should not have happened on our watch”

Over the past week, the Select Committee On Deliberate Online Falsehoods has hauled academics and media professionals to testify in front of a panel of Parliamentarians.

Early debates were peppered with awkward puns and obscure references, but yesterday (22 Mar)’s session has proven the most entertaining.

Featuring social media and Internet executives, the session was marked by raised tempers and testy temperaments.

read more

Is there more to Shanmugam’s ‘interrogation’ of Facebook exec than what meets the eye?

A Singaporean writer has offered that Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam’s 3-hour questioning of a local Facebook executive might just be a smokescreen.

The writer comments come as videos of the heated exchange between the Minister and Facebook’s vice-president of public policy for Asia-Pacific, Simon Milner has been making rounds online.

Milner, who had been representing the social media giant in front of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods on Thursday, found himself in a verbal tussle with the Law Minister who took his organisation to task for the recent data breach scandal that has gripped headlines.

read more

Minister's Brutal Smack-Down to Facebook Official in 'Fake News' Hearing

'I Don't Need an Answer From You'

Singapore’s justice minister delivered a withering smack-down to a Facebook official appearing before a parliamentary committee on March 22, responding to the latter’s objections to questions by saying, “Can we move on. I don’t need an answer.”

Kasiviswanathan Shanmugam, also known as K Shanmugam, made his comments following complaints by Simon Milner, Facebook’s Policy Director, EMEA, who was appearing before the parliamentary Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods. Shanmugam had asked Milner a number of questions in what was a tetchy exchange, before, at 5’15" in this footage, Milner addressed the chair and objected to the questions. “I’m not sure this is a fair use of this committee’s time,” Milner said. “I don’t think it’s fair to ask me detailed questions about evidence given by my colleague to a different parliament in a different country about activities associated with that country.” Milner and Shanmugam then argued back and forth, with the chairman also interjecting to make clear it would be he and members of the committee, and not Milner, who would decide which questions were relevant.

Then, Shanmugam delivered his coup de grace. From 9’52" in this footage, he says, "If you are embarrassed about being confronted with answers that your colleagues have given to other parliaments, you can say so. If you feel unable to support them, of course you can say so. But I think you will leave the relevance of the questions to me, and for me to be directed by the chair. “Can we move on?” he asked, only to add as Milner moved his microphone to respond, “I don’t need an answer from you.” Credit: Singapore Government via Storyful

read more

Facebook's statements and conduct on the Cambridge Analytica data breaches

Public Hearings On Deliberate Online Falsehoods

Delving into Singapore’s history

read more

Select Committee concludes hearings on fake news after eight sessions marked by tense exchanges

The final Select Committee hearing on deliberate online falsehoods ended on Thursday (Mar 29), with Deputy Speaker and the committee’s chairman Charles Chong describing it as having “extensive involvement and robust engagement” in his closing remarks.

read more

Channel NewsAsia 17 hrs

“This should not have happened on our watch”: Facebook's representative at the Select Committee hearing on the misuse of data by Cambridge Analytica.

But he and Minister K Shanmugam Sc crossed swords over whether it was a data breach, and why users were not told.

read more

Channel NewsAsia 9 January

Minister K Shanmugam Sc lists three reasons why Singapore is "highly susceptible" to deliberate online falsehoods.

read more

“Kill the Chicken to Scare the Monkeys”

Singapore promotes itself as a bustling, modern city-state and a great place to do business. Beneath the slick surface of gleaming high-rises, however, it is a repressive place, where the government severely restricts what can be said, published, performed, read, or watched. Those who criticize the government or the judiciary, or publicly discuss race and religion, frequently find themselves facing criminal investigations and charges, or civil defamation suits and crippling damages. Peaceful public demonstrations and other assemblies are severely limited, and failure to comply with detailed restrictions on what can be said and who can participate in public gatherings frequently results in police investigations and the threat of criminal charges.

The suppression of speech and assembly is not a new phenomenon in Singapore. Leaders of the ruling Peoples’ Action Party (PAP), which has been in power for more than 50 years, have a history of bankrupting opposition politicians through civil defamation suits and jailing them for public protests. Suits against and restrictions on foreign media that report critically on the country have featured regularly since the 1970s and restrictions on public gatherings have been in place since at least 1973.

Although there has been some relaxation in the rules on public assemblies, they remain extraordinarily strict, and restrictions on participation by foreigners have only increased over time. The government has also enacted new regulations to control online media. The government now uses a combination of criminal laws, oppressive regulatory restrictions, access to funding, and civil lawsuits to control and limit critical speech and peaceful protests. And the courts have not provided a significant counterweight to executive and legislative branch overreach.

read more

In Defence of Dr PJ Thum and Academic Freedom in Singapore

We, the undersigned Trustees of Oxford Project Southeast Asia, wish to express in the strongest possible terms our concern regarding the treatment of Dr PJ Thum in recent hearings of the Singapore government’s Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods. Co-ordinator of Project Southeast Asia, and a member of its Board of Trustees, Dr Thum is a historian of Singapore’s independence struggle of the 1950s and 1960s, and since completing his doctorate at Oxford on this subject in 2011 has continued his research, notably reviewing documentation released recently by the British government on that era, and making his findings available to a wider audience. The documentation provided by his original and carefully sourced research has revealed events and relationships between Singapore’s leaders of the period that run counter to the view of the country’s history as now promoted by the Singapore government.

Earlier this year, Dr Thum responded to the public call, by the Select Committee, for submissions on the current state of media information and its reliability in Singapore. However, when called to interview by the Committee, he found that the contents of his submission were not the object of their inquiry, and were never directly discussed. Instead, Dr Thum was subjected to six hours of questioning by the Minister for Law and Home Affairs which focussed on the findings of his academic research. In the course of this interrogation, which may be viewed in full online at the Government of Singapore’s YouTube channel the Minister repeatedly expressed disdain for Dr Thum’s research, rephrasing its findings in general terms that misrepresented it, and attempting to get Dr Thum to agree to those rephrasings by attempting to force him to provide only yes/no answers. Dr Thum has since been subject to unflattering and one-sided reporting by the media.

Dr Thum’s research has already met the rigorous standards of examination at Oxford, and in peer review by fellow historical experts on the region. There is an evident irony in a Select Committee addressed to deliberate information falsehoods which proceeds by impugning and restating empirical findings. The implications for academic freedom, and for freedom of expression in Singapore, are very troubling. Instead of a hearing with the stated objective of securing truth in information, the actual conduct of its questioning appears designed to intimidate those who seek to publish the truth.

We call on the Select Committee to issue an immediate and public apology for this unacceptable treatment of Dr Thum.

read more

Submission to the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, Parliament of Singapore

The focusing of media literacy education on teaching Singaporeans to understand how the information industry works, to be politically aware, and to be skeptical of all information, regardless of source;
The repeal of the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act 1974, and reform/repeal of other laws which suppress free speech;
A Freedom of Information Act which automatically declassifies all government documents after 25 years unless they are specifically retained; and,
The establishment of an independent government watchdog (Ombudsman) with the authority to investigate complaints against the government and censure government officials who mislead the public.

Spore May Have Accidently Revealed Its “Ugly Secret” With Detention

A new law to fight fake news will be Introduced next year and the government will be consulting stakeholders in the second half of this year on it, Singapore's Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam said on Monday. Foto: ST file

Giving the keynote address at a conference titled "Keep It Real: Truth & Trust In The Media", Mr Shanmugam said the government has to maintain a strong climate of trust, & be able to counter misinformation spread online.

He said the authorities must be equipped to deal with current challenges & added that society, the media and Internet companies also have a role to play.

He revealed that an earlier survey showed more than nine in 10 Singaporeans supported stronger laws to ensure fake news is removed or corrected.

read more

Combating fake news in Singapore