Links to other submissions [EDITED 28 February]

Not every publicised submission to the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods has been published on Medium. This post is a collation of links of published submissions found elsewhere on the web.

Function 8 (F8)

What the Green Paper said about the Singapore Herald and how the mainstream media repeatedly broadcast the government’s unfounded allegations against those arrested in 1987 are just two examples of lies perpetuated by the State. Such lies are difficult to eradicate. If there is a need to contain deliberate falsehoods, those repeatedly uttered by the State should be the ones that require attention for falsehoods repeated often enough will be believed by the people and that is the real danger to the survival of Singapore.

As far as we are concerned, we have more than sufficient laws to take care of online falsehoods. There is no need for parliament to legislate more laws to stifle freedom of speech and expression.

Read F8’s submission here.

Community Action Network (CAN)

The Community Action Network believes fake news is not a major issue in Singapore, and that there are enough safeguards in place to deal with potential problems. Rather than introduce more legislation, the government should grant Singaporeans the right resources and tools to identify fake news.

We would like to point out that Singapore’s mainstream media has been complicit in helping the government to perpetuate dubious allegations, which can count as “fake news”. For example, it parroted the PAP government’s position that there was a “Marxist Conspiracy” in 1987. This allegation has never been proven.

You can find CAN’s submission here.

Singapore Unbound

The meaning of individual facts is always, and already, embedded in narratives. As such, Singaporeans should be exposed to all competing narratives and be trained to discern between them. This training is best conducted in schools through the study of literature and history. To revitalize the study of the humanities prepares all Singaporeans to respond with discernment to “deliberate online falsehoods.”

Singapore Unbound’s submission can be found here.

Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE)

The internet is young, but the dilemmas of free speech have been discussed in courts and legislatures for centuries. Nor is rapid mass communication new: a 1938 radio broadcast about an alien invasion paused to reassure worried listeners it was fictional. The Cold War era was marked by hostile foreign state propaganda: e.g. a Soviet campaign alleged that HIV was a US-engineered weapon. In Singapore, media licensing, advertising regulation, and laws on sedition, harassment, defamation and contempt of court, among others, have long grappled with balancing expression and harm.

While there is reasonable concern about how social media may shape media consumption, we argue for upstream education instead of downstream censorship wherever possible.

You can read AWARE’s full submission here.

Cherian George, Professor of Media Studies at Hong Kong Baptist University

This submission has tried to offer productive ways of thinking about disinformation as it’s used in hate propaganda. In particular, I’ve cautioned against over-depending on techno-legal restrictions — not because we should fetishise free speech, but because such responses underestimate the scale and stealthiness of hate campaigns. We would be better off strengthening the public’s capacity to deal with disinformation. Reliable, public-interest media remain the best antidote to deliberate falsehoods. Behavioural scientists also recommend inoculating people against untruths by making them more savvy about disinformation methods. Quality media and a forewarned public have been cited as key reasons why Russian disinformation was much less effective in last year’s German elections than anticipated.

Cherian’s submission can be found here.

Howard Lee, former editor and PhD students researching Singapore’s media environment

I maintain that public awareness and the open exchange of information remain the best solutions against misinformation. The government has a more important responsibility to be a player in the propagation of this free exchange, rather than seek to be the arbiter of regulatory regimes and laws that, contrary to stated purpose, can adversely affect the circulation of information. I contend that a political determination to respond swiftly and effectively to misinformation works better at helping citizens and maintaining Singapore’s social-political stability — clearly a key concern in the government’s Green Paper — than any enforcement methods. Ultimately,
misinformation cannot be resolved by legislation. It can only be reduced by ensuring that alternative information is made available in an open and unbiased media environment that encourages free and active participation.

Howard sent in two submissions. The first can be found here. The second was also published as an op-ed here.

Dr Edmund Chow, Mohamad Abdillah Zamzuri, Nadine Yap, Osman Sulaiman, Ravi Chandran Philemon and Wendy Koh Lai May jointly submitted

The problem of online falsehoods is a real one, but we are convinced that human discernment is the best way to counter any falsehoods and that the Government should provide all the tools to ensure that the public can better develop this capability.

Their submission can be found here.

---

Links to other submissions [EDITED 28 February] was originally published in Submissions to the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

from Handpicked stories about Media on Medium https://medium.com/submissions-to-the-select-committee-on-deliberate/links-to-other-submissions-e790938c0a8f?source=rss-------8-----------------media
via TV in Warrington