Govt to continue studying if levers beyond Pofma are needed to tackle deepfakes, online fake news

SINGAPORE - As deepfakes, non-factual claims and other online harms become more prevalent in cyberspace, the Republic is growing its capabilities to tackle them.

This involves a continual study of whether new levers are needed, said spokespeople for the Ministry of Communications and Information and Ministry of Law on June 16.

In particular, artificial intelligence (AI) is being misused to create and spread misinformation and disinformation, to manipulate public opinion and influence election results, they noted.

Responding to questions from The Straits Times on the effectiveness of Singapore’s fake news law, they added that the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma) can be used to address such issues “under some conditions”, but did not elaborate.

In

an article on June 15,

ST reported that five years after Pofma came into force, concerns are beginning to emerge over the Act’s effectiveness amid the rise of AI, with generative-AI tools becoming easily accessible to the public. These include whether the law will be able to work quickly or precisely enough to address instances of AI-generated misinformation and disinformation.

ST had earlier sent questions on the issue to the authorities for the June 15 report, but they did not respond in time.

In their reply on June 16, the ministries’ spokespeople said Pofma is not the only tool the Government relies on to tackle fake news. For example, the Centre for Advanced Technologies in Online Safety works with various partners to build tools to detect and address various forms of online harms.

There are also public education efforts focused on helping people critically evaluate information and recognise false or misleading content.

In addition, the media and third-party fact-checkers play a key role in curbing the spread of misinformation, the spokespeople added.

Asked how Pofma has helped regulate Singapore’s fake news landscape over the past five years, they said: “Pofma has helped at least to address misinformation that undermines public interest. It establishes a factual basis for honest discourse in our public square.”

They added that it is essential to have measures that support the infrastructure of fact and promote honest speech in public discourse.

Under Pofma, the primary response deployed against falsehoods deemed as being against the public interest is correction directions. These do not require the falsehoods to be taken down, they said. Instead, a link to the facts is to be put up alongside the falsehood. “A discerning reader will be able to decide for himself or herself after reading both the falsehoods and facts,” said the spokespeople.

“Pofma has played an effective role in the upkeep of trust in our public institutions. In the long run, it will support good-quality public discourse and maintain trust in our public institutions,” they added.

In its June 15 report, ST had cited several experts concerned over how Pofma may some day be abused by individuals holding political authority, and who called for independent fact-checking platforms.

A spokesman for the Workers’ Party, whose MPs had all

voted against the Pofma Bill in Parliament in 2019,

said in an e-mail response late on June 14 that the party maintains that the courts must be required to approve government Pofma directives on substantive grounds.

“Should the courts be the primary arbiter of falsehoods, this will help to establish an independent, unbiased and equitable process that will be perceived by many to be more reliable, transparent and fair,” he said.

In response to a query on how ministers consider applications to vary or cancel Pofma directions, the ministries’ spokespeople said the minister issuing the direction assesses each application on a case-by-case basis.

Factors to consider include whether the recipient had communicated the statement in Singapore, if the statement is a false statement of fact, whether it is technically possible for the recipient to comply with the direction, and whether there is public interest in maintaining the direction.

If the minister refuses the application in whole or in part, the recipient of the Pofma direction can appeal to the High Court.

“The courts have the final say over whether the Pofma direction was correctly issued,” said the spokespeople.

Since the law came into force in 2019, there have been 17 such applications submitted to the relevant ministers.

Of the 14 applications to cancel Pofma directions, only one was successful.

This was the

correction direction issued to the Australia-based East Asia Forum,

which had carried an article written by a National University of Singapore academic.

The correction direction to the site and a targeted correction direction to Meta Platforms to carry a correction notice on Facebook

were later cancelled.

This was after the article was removed from all relevant sites at the request of the author, who also issued a public apology on the matter.

Of the 13 unsuccessful applications, eight recipients appealed to the High Court.

Of these, six were dismissed fully by the courts and one was withdrawn by the appellant.

One case was allowed in part by the courts – the one involving the Singapore Democratic Party that concluded in 2021 – and a fresh correction direction was subsequently issued to correct the falsehood, the spokespeople said.

The remaining three applications of the 17 submitted since 2019 were for variations, which were all allowed as the recipients of the directions were unable to comply for technical reasons.