Noted local socio-political commentator, Andrew Loh, in a post on his Facebook profile, has decried attempts by some parties to distinguish the usual 'bread-and-butter' issues from the fake news legislation and one's freedom of speech. Loh's position is that the two are not necessarily separate.
If the anti-fake news bill becomes law, the ability of people to share their stories and speak freely becomes curtailed. Loh used the example of how stories now on homeless people in Singapore, may, in the future be silenced because the concerned ministries can dispute the stories and charge them for spreading fake news.
In the past, Loh pointed out they can still stand by their stories even if such stories are disputed, or even if they are castigated by the Minister. This is because Loh had done due diligence and had their facts right.
The main problem lies in who is the arbiter of fact.
Loh is of the opinion that the government has to better articulate what it terms as 'false statements of facts'.
What Loh contends is absolutely spot on.
There is no disputing that fake news is a problem. We can all become victims of fake news, be it at the individual, or even a national level. Mitigating the impact of fake news however must not come at the ability of an individual to exercise his free speech. Especially, when the facts are in order.
If our freedom of speech is taken away, what else would we have?
