New Laws on Online Falsehoods in Singapore - Paper Example

Introduction

Online falsehoods pose not only pose severe problems to individuals but also to a country and the entire world. According to Xu (2018), online falsehood can be described as news which are non-factual, misleading, and inaccurate. His definition should be discussed in depth and made clear. This is essential since the perceptions of organizations and individuals and their comprehension of facts are not automatically categorized either as false or true in absence of good independent scrutiny. Additionally, in the contemporary world, online falsehoods are easily spread via digital technologies that are easily available. For instance, countries such as Singapore that has had the greatest concentration of smart phones within its population, any individual with internet access can easily send or receive information at a touch of a screen or click of a button (The Straits Times, 2018). Therefore, there has been increased political and economic concerns surrounding the enactment of additional laws to combat and prevent deliberate online falsehoods in Singapore. For example, the Singapore Parliament has been determined to establish a Committee to discuss the causes, results, and whether or not to enact additional laws other than the existing ones as countermeasures on deliberate online falsehoods. There is no need for to enact more laws to prevent and combat deliberate online falsehood but Singapore government should offer the public with greater accessibility to information and intensify plans to enhance media literacy.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The Singapore government should not introduce new laws since it has not revealed any persuading proof that the problem of online falsehood is fundamentally new or there are severe problems with the present rules (The Straits Times, 2018). The existing regulations can be utilized and have been employed against deliberate online falsehoods that have been seen in Singapore as well as overseas. Therefore, there exists a high threat that any new parliamentary act will be utilized against the genuine expressing of dissenting opinions. For instance, in the case conducted against the editors of a current-defunct sociopolitical website known as The Real Singapore, they were sentenced while referring to the Sedition Act of 2006. The editors were convicted of causing deliberate sowing dissonance between the foreigners and Singaporeans (The Straits Times, 2018). Therefore, this case reveals that the pre-internet period laws can also be utilized against deliberate online falsehoods not only for its citizens but also for individuals outside Singapore hence no need for new laws.

The best approach to combat and prevent online falsehood mainly via social media is to permit Singaporeans to gain access to additional sources of information. Additionally, this will allow them to establish a critical and questioning mentality concerning what is false and true regardless of whether the news comes from independent or official sources (The Straits Times, 2018). Mr Xu, a member of chosen committee to deliberate online falsehoods, argued that this would enhance media literary that might act as a significant measure to combat and prevent online falsehood rather than introducing new laws. He further strained that incorporating meaningful and media literacy education ought to be stressed from a young age (The Straits Times, 2018). According to The Straits Times (2018), he also noted the need for every Singaporean to have a comprehensive political education. For example, Singaporeans and other individuals should be able to utilize either or both the broadcast and social media in engaging in open discussions and debates. Furthermore, every source of information should be publicly accessible including the broadly spread mainstream media that ought to be treated fairly and equally. Therefore, where Singaporeans are given appropriate tools and resources to identify online falsehood, these approaches would be the best techniques for enhancing online literacy (Workfairsg, 2018).

The new laws to combat and prevent online falsehood could stifle the freedom of expression among the Singaporeans. Ms. Han, an author in Singapore for foreign and regional publications, argued that the likelihood of liveliness existing on social media has made some individuals claim that present regulations do not permit the government to act swiftly to reduce the speed in which online falsehood may spread (The Straits Times, 2018). Therefore, the Singapore government should be careful to ensure it does not trade significant values of justice with the due procedure of speed. This is because hasty countermeasures drag with them the threat of imposing and giving too much power to the relevant authorities at the expense of open discussion and freedom of expression. Therefore, the new laws may hence undermine the vigorous exchange of information which is vital in molding the path for Singapore.

There are also those who argue that the existing laws cannot handle deliberate online falsehoods in Singapore particularly fake news that spread rapidly, source from overseas, and have severe or irreversible outcomes (Kelly, 2018). For instance, in a submission made by Goh Yihan, dean in Singapore Management University, he concluded that the Telecommunication Act, Protection from Harassment Act, and Sedition Act which would be used to combat online falsehood are restricted in adaptability, scope, and speed (Hoe, 2018). He suggested for new laws which would punish and discourage perpetrators. He also proposed that to avert the spread of online falsehoods, they should be removed or their access restricted while providing remedy via apology or clarification. Additionally, he argued that while the present laws address the perpetrators of deliberate online falsehoods, falsehoods themselves are not enclosed which ensure they continue being accessible by various other individuals. For instance, in the case of Rebecca Riviera, a woman who claimed to be Saint-Martin resident, a French land that experienced Hurricane Irma in 2017, the existing laws cannot be used to combat online falsehood (Hoe, 2018). Riviera claimed on Facebook that Air France had raised the prices for air ticket before the occurrence of the hurricane which saw thousands dead where the government hides the facts. However, her claims were later found to be false. The supporters of enactment of more laws argue that whereas the existing regulations may be applied, her claims would increase people alarm. This is because it would consume much time to conduct investigations on her case. Additionally, if Riviera was arrested, her claims would continue being online, in the absence of ensuring the audience are given the true facts about the matter. Therefore, there should be suitable laws that handle falsehood by rapidly removing the them online and at the same time punishing its perpetrators.

Conclusion

It is clear that introduction of new laws to prevent online falsehood is not appropriate since the existing one are also performing their intended roles. There also lacks enough proof that the existing laws pose severe challenges while combating online falsehoods. Additionally, as an alternative, the Singaporean should permit its citizens gain access to additional sources of information which would help them improve media literacy and know what is false and true. The new laws could stifle the freedom of expression among the Singaporeans rather than help prevent online falsehoods. Conversely, various individuals argue that the present laws are not adequate to address online falsehoods that spread rapidly, source from overseas, and have severe or irreversible outcomes. There are many negative than positive implications associated with introduction of new laws. Thus, the Singapore government should avoid having new rules rather it should use the existing one while offering the public with greater accessibility to information and intensifying plans to enhance media literacy.

References

Hio, L. (2018). Existing laws not sufficient to combat deliberate online falsehoods: SMU law dean. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/existing-laws-not-sufficient-to-combat-deliberate-online-falsehoods-smu-law-dean

Hoe, R. (2018). Deliberate online falsehoods: an issue of checks and balances. Retrieved from: https://consensusg.com/2018/01/13/deliberate-online-falsehoods-an-issue-of-checks-and-balances/

Kelly, N.G. (2018). Existing laws limited in dealing with fake news: Experts at public hearing. Retrieved from: https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/existing-laws-limited-dealing-fake-news-experts-public-hearing

The Straits Times (2018). No need for new laws to counter online falsehoods, activists tell Select Committee. Retrieved from: https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/no-need-for-new-laws-to-counter-online-falsehoods-activists-tell-select-committee

The Straits Times. (2018). Fighting online falsehoods deliberately, but judiciously. Retrieved from: https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/fighting-online-falsehoods-deliberately-but-judiciously

Workfairsg. (2018). Submission on the Singapore government's plan to regulate fake news. Retrieved from: https://singaporecan.wordpress.com/2018/02/27/submission-on-the-singapore-governments-plan-to-regulate-fake-news/

Xu, T. (2018). TOC's submission to Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods. Retrieved from https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2018/03/07/tocs-submission-to-select-committee-on-deliberate-online-falsehoods/