Somewhere, in a not too distant place, trouble is brewing. Unlike traditional Clausewitzian clashes fought on fields of rubble, in thick foliage, the new terrain bears little resemblance to this former image. The clanging of steel swords, as armies have at one another, the cracking of rifles in the background, displaced by the clickety-clack of keyboards. Displays of might and raw heft matter little in cyberspace – herein lies the new frontier.
The battle of ideas is inescapably tied to the battle for hearts and minds. The wise are privy to this, and anywhere and everywhere seek to manage it. The ascendancy of this ideational tug-of-war is not new: from Socrates’ corruption of youth charge to the gleichschaltung of minds in Nazi Germany, ideas matter a lot. A conduit of this informational stream, the Internet gives anyone regardless of inclination or demographic, a platform to make their voices heard. It has reshaped how we do things every day and reinvented our access to information. This does, however, set up a Catch-22 situation, given that that very fountain of limitless knowledge – dependent as we have grown to be on it – could well be a poisoned chalice.
THE ACT: ITS PROMISES
Here is where Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act – or POFMA for short – comes in. The Act aims to protect society from the damage caused by deliberate online falsehoods and fake accounts used to spread such falsehoods1. It promises to mitigate the excesses created by so-called ‘fake news’, which, in step with copious bandwidth and reverberating digital media echo chambers, have the potential to grossly mislead. Who could forget the brouhaha over hearing news of roof collapse of a HDB apartment building in Punggol?
While a good number of these fake news instances are individually too isolated and trivial to be of significant concern to society, as a whole, policymakers in particular are understandably vigilant.Supporters of POFMA insist that, compared to legislation that came before it, the bill is narrower in terms than the current law. For instance, Senior Counsel Siraj Omar pointed out that the government – under the existing Broadcasting Act and other legislation pertaining to deceptive online content – already has considerable powers2. Under old legislation, the government is able to block access to specific sites, as it did with the States Times Review, and unlike POFMA, does not offer an outlet for one to appeal a minister’s decision – taken up with the courts – should they deem it disputable. POFMA then, it has been said, seeks “to scope down and calibrate the Government’s powers in key areas”3, where no one is exempt from the judge’s impartial hammer.
Nevertheless, the law’s ambit is somewhat broad, and includes websites – where social media dungeons and e-forums are viewed as open hives for grapevine talk – and closed private platforms, such as messaging apps.
Governing officials, on their end, are quite aware of the possibility of miasmas building up in the cyber cloud, leading – among other things – to increasingly fractious interactions between people of different backgrounds, skepticism towards state institutions, and, after a few missteps, a Hobbesian war of all against all. Set against the backdrop of these situations, states increasingly step in.
APPREHENSION ABOUT POFMA
If regulation is entirely compatible with a free society, and if the public at large agrees that some form of regulation of laissez faire internet is desirable, why all the fuss surrounding the bill? The answer has to do with the following points.
First, that interpretations of ‘opinions and criticisms’, supposedly not covered by the bill, can be highly subjective, doing little to abate the fake news conundrum. In a speech made in parliament, Workers’ Party MP Low Thia Khiang highlighted the possibility that two identical speeches – albeit by different people – may produce two entirely different judgements4.
If, for example, a member of the political opposition opines that the older generation of Singaporeans cannot accept a non-Chinese Prime Minister, would it still count as an opinion? Would it still be considered an opinion-based utterance, or would it be deemed a political move aimed at stirring the racial stew?
In addition, acting in what is commonly called an environment of ‘imperfect information’ – in which there is less than complete access to accurate information – can easily render intended statements of opinion as alleged statements of falsehoods. In any case, legitimate fear exists that these informational asymmetries, artificially maintained (e.g. classified nature of some documents), can be employed and ‘weaponised’ for particular ends, further stifling truth-based debate. These deeds of democratic derring-do – of which journalists, academics and activists are no stranger to – are then seen as ill-fated enterprises. Insofar as one is not allowed or does not have sufficient resources to freely question, ‘truth’ then becomes ossified, further distorting the citizenry’s decision-making capacity.
The bulk of the opposition to the bill, however, relates to the amount of power that it vests in ministers who, as mentioned earlier, are ordained with the power to make initial judgements (and consequently decisions) on what is ‘fake news’, with a take down or correction notice issued where necessary. The bill’s opponents, which include members of the Workers’ Party, take issue with the ‘uncertainty’ relating to the circumstances around which a government minister wields their powers5. At the heart of the law’s concern, said Minister for Law K. Shanmugam, is the need to quickly break the virality of online falsehoods before it animates any latent unrest caused by its spread6. This, together with Clause 617 of the bill, and suddenly, that all too familiar beat (and fear) about ‘absolute power’, and its centralisation, begins to drum ever more loudly8.
Cherian George, in his commentary about the potential perils of POFMA, adduced the bill’s wide latitude as compelling individuals – be they academics, journalists or ordinary citizens – into ‘self-censorship’ out of fear of ‘miscalculating’ the bill’s breadth9.
PROPOSALS AND ITS LIMITATIONS
There is a sizeable calling, therefore, for the establishment of an independent body – composed of a diverse selection of individuals across society – to surveil POFMA-related matters, much akin to a POFMA court. Putting aside the potential ‘principal-agent’ problem that may arise from the issue of who ultimately gets to decide who makes up this body, it would, at least nominally, be seen as slightly more independent10. The performance of the body could be assessed at particular intervals based on clearly predefined criteria, with members subject to fixed term limits. This could, in my opinion, reduce allegations of ‘politicised’ decision making, while also ensuring that perceived falsehoods are swiftly dealt with.
The next suggestion involves strengthening on first glance, appear entirely irrational to us. That, despite education on media literacy and online hygiene, despite the mountain of evidence discrediting the authenticity of a news source, despite scores of people coaxing the unyielding internet user of its invalidity, a person chooses to believe otherwise. the capacity of the citizenry to appropriately deal with new information, the so-called ‘media literacy’ and ‘media education’ programmes. The proximity of an individual to the World Wide Web means that there is not much that can be done – bar physically restraining the individual – to stop them from accessing it. The main thrust of these campaigns is to equip one with the necessary tools to sift out and discern real information from fake, so that, like the Greek travellers sailing past the Sirens of Anthemoessa, one is not lured by its dangerous tune. This involves education on how to properly verify sources of information, and guidelines about identifying potentially fake news, as opposed to reflexively ‘sharing’ or ‘liking’ something without giving it much thought.
At the same time, and on this latter note, we need a deeper appreciation of why certain segments of the population continually appear to be more likely infiltrated by fake news. By the same token, we cannot afford to discount things that, on first glance, appear entirely irrational to us. That, despite education on media literacy and online hygiene, despite the mountain of evidence discrediting the authenticity of a news source, despite scores of people coaxing the unyielding internet user of its invalidity, a person chooses to believe otherwise.
In a perverse way, this borderline nihilism – coupled by the rejection of ‘establishmentarian truths’ in favour of subjective ones – snugly fits into the interstices of our 21st century world, supercharged by one’s accessibility to more information than has ever been possible at any time in human history. In the scientific age that we live in, where a great number perceive an existential assault on religion and traditional ways of life, we must be aware of these underlying fissures that cannot easily be remedied by internet-literacy campaign and the like. We do not, after all, speak of using logic and reason to mend a grieving heart.
In a perverse way, this borderline nihilism – coupled by the rejection of ‘establishmentarian truths’ in favour of subjective ones – snugly fits into the interstices of our 21st century world, supercharged by one’s accessibility to more information than has ever been possible at any time in human history. In the scientific age that we live in, where a great number perceive an existential assault on religion and traditional ways of life, we must be aware of these underlying fissures that cannot easily be remedied by internet-literacy campaign and the like. We do not, after all, speak of using logic and reason to mend a grieving heart.
Where traditional media, especially Western media, is viewed as a propaganda-spewing automaton, it may be difficult to hush that tiny voice in our head that goes “don’t trust them”, despite adequate media literacy; education on media literacy might do little if the entire exercise itself (i.e. media literacy campaigns etc.) is viewed as propaganda in the first place.
THE POWER OF IDEAS (REVISITED)
The battle of ideas is inescapably tied to the battle for hearts and minds.
In what is, to many, a dramatic painting of future events, the long-term consequences of POFMA (and the enabling effects that are dreaded would follow given path dependence), instigated by a culture of ‘self-censorship’ and servitude, is feared to produce something akin to a Huxley-Orwellian dystopia. In Brave New World, Huxley imagines a future, bleak world. People are ‘programmed’ – via eugenics, social conditioning and SOMA11 – to be happy. It is a world dominated by ‘soft totalitarianism’ and mind control, though it is in many senses a perfectly peaceful and stable world. In 1984, Orwell imagines quite the opposite – a place of ‘hard totalitarianism’, where thought police and big brother are everywhere, watching one’s every move. In both cases, there is a high degree of social regulation.
Though it is quite unlikely that this moribund image of a future world – or a future state even – is likely to be the result of POFMA, we must take heed of the legitimate reservations that people have about it. Yes, there is certainly a need to regulate parts of the Internet, and the state needs to be a part of that process, but regulate it in a way such that the state does not compromise its democratic legitimacy. In this free, inclusive and democratic society, the challenging of conventional wisdom is commonplace, decision making power is decentralised and every citizen truly has an equal voice. Only then can the growth of reason – that social process – and society’s knowledge stock continue.
In this brave new world, we can all rejoice, because instead of SOMA, we have POFMA. ⬛
1 https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-proposes-multi-pronged-law-to-combat-online-falsehoods-11400614
2 https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/a-more-calibrated-approach
3 https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/online-falsehoods-bill-pofma-fake-news-narrows-government-powers-11496172
4 https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/laws-fight-fake-news-passed-workers-party-rapped-opposing-move
5 https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3009263/singapores-opposition-calls-fake-news-bill-damocles-sword
6 https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/parliament/news/online-falsehoods-bill-courts-decide-pofma-shanmugam-pritam-11514102
7 ‘The Minister may, by order in the Gazette, exempt any person or class of persons from any provision of this Act.’ https://www.parliament.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/protection-from-online-falsehoods-and-manipulation-bill10-2019.pdf
8 “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” —Lord Acton
9 https://www.newmandala.org/singapores-online-falsehoods-bill-will-deepen-a-culture-of-self-censorship/
10 https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/proposed-law-on-falsehoods-has-clear-oversight-mechanism-to-11438132
11 In Brave New World, SOMA is a drug provided by governments to its people which heightens some feelings (e.g. happiness, sexual arousal, self-satisfaction etc.) and represses others (e.g. sadness, anger, disillusionment). Huxley, A. (1932). Brave New World. New York: Harper Brothers.
Abdul Hakeem Akbar Ali was formerly a Research Assistant at the Centre for Research on Islamic and Malay Affairs. He is currently pursuing his postgraduate studies in International Political Economy at the London School of Economics.
