Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill – Speech by Chen Show Mao

(Delivered in Parliament on 8 May 2019)

议长先生,

根据《防止网络假信息和网络操纵法案》,被定为发传假信息,容易损害我国公共利益的个人可被判坐牢长达10年、罚款最高10万元; 法人则罚款最高100万元。这项新法案,不能说是不严厉。

根据法案,政府可以强制个人或网络平台更正或撤下假新闻。每一位部长都有权评断信息真假,是否与公共利益相抵触,然后发布指示要求更正或撤下信息,即使信息已经被修正过或已经不在新加坡流传了。

如何定义信息真假、公共利益 ?– 法案给了每位部长绝大的诠释空间。

“假信息”–法案定义为“虚假或有误导性的信息,无论以全或以偏,也无论是源于信息本身的解读或者结合更广泛背景的解读” (“false or misleading, whether wholly or in part, and whether on its own or in the context in which it appears”); ”信息“则定义为“文字(包括缩写及简称)、数字、影像及动像、声音、标志及其它代表符号、及它们之间任何的组合” (“any word (including abbreviation and initial), number, image (moving or otherwise), sound, symbol or other representation, or a combination of any of these”)。

“公共利益” 在法案里的定义下则包括公众对我国政府的信心。也就是说,如果任何一位新加坡政府部长认为某项假信息削弱了国人对新加坡政府的信心 (这当然包括对他所负责的政府部门的信心),他有权发布指示要求更正或撤下信息。

当事人若对部长的指示有异议,在作出更正或撤下信息后可向法庭提出上诉。

针对上诉,法案规定法庭只能在三种情况下否定部长的指示:该信息并未传达至新加坡;该指示的落实执行有技术性的困难;或者该信息是“正确的事实陈述,或不归类为事实陈述”(”the person did not communicate in Singapore the subject statement; it is not technically possible to comply with the Direction; the subject statement is not a statement of fact, or is a true statement of fact“); 也就是说:信息不假。可是,在同时法庭无法过问部长如何判断假信息是否削弱了国人对新加坡政府的信心。公共利益由部长说了算。

议长先生,

有人说:那有什么关系呢?这不过是政府在进行它的工作。人民不满意的话,下回大选可以换政府。更何况部长是个可靠的公仆,即使法案文本书面上赋予他绝大的权力,他实际上不会滥用。

Some say: Why worry?  This is simply the government carrying out its work.  If the people are not happy, they can change the government at the next elections.  What’s more, the minister is a dependable public servant, even if the text of the bill grants him great powers, he in fact will not abuse them.

这是个大话题,这里我简单的带过。

This is a big topic, which I touch on briefly here.

我认为,一个国家政治体系的运作成功与否,无论在西方或东方,很大取决于它对权力的有效监督。这些监督的机制有许多形式:民主选举是一种,法律是一种,官员及人民的道德教化也是一种,信息的公开包括网上信息的公开,言论的自由包括网上言论的自由等等都是。它们都是监督政治权力的机制。它们并不一定相互排斥,能够有效地结合它们其中越多项、越好。这对我们是一项挑战。

I believe that the success of a political system in delivering results for its people, whether in the West or the East, depends to a large extent on the effective checks on the exercise of power.  These checks take many forms: democratic elections are one; so is the rule of law, also the moral and ethical codes that guide and constrain the behaviour of government officials and the people; the public disclosure of information, including online information; the freedom of speech, including online speech, etc.  They are all mechanisms that provide checks on the exercise of power. They are not mutually exclusive. The more of them we can integrate and accommodate, the better. This is a worthy challenge for us.

就谈法律对权力的监督吧。法治文明在西方有成功的历史。坚持法治、反对人治的口号在东方也越发响亮,日渐成为普世认同的价值。法治。但是单凭立法多并不代表一个国家法治内涵高,不代表法律对权力进行着有效的监督。如果我们今天所订立的法律赋予当权者绝大的权力,任由他酌情行使,如果我们没有在法律文本里明确的校准对权力的限制,那我们将不能说我们成功地迎接了我们的挑战:成功地结合了法治与我们对德治的期许。

Let’s talk about the checks on power provided by laws.  The Rule of Law has had great success in the West historically.  To promote the rule of law in opposition to the rule of man is also a growing aspiration in the East, making the Rule of Law increasingly a universal human value.  But the rule of law is not achieved merely by a high volume of legislation. The existence of a large number of laws does not in itself effectively constrain the exercise of power.  If the laws we make grant the minister great powers, to be used at his discretion, if we do not clearly calibrate in the text of a law its constraints on power, then we will not be able to say that we have successfully met our challenge: that we successfully married the rule of law with our hopes for a rule of virtue.