Do You Really Need a Sledge Hammer to Get Your Point Across to the Fly?

 

Four days ago, a correction order was made against the Independent Singapore (as a matter of full disclosure, I have a working relationship with the Independent Singapore, which picks up my blog pieces on a monthly basis) under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma) for claiming in an article that Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam may be stepping down from his ministerial positions. More on the story can be found at:

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/pofma-correction-direction-issued-independent-singapore-over-false-claims-shanmugam-may-be-stepping-down-1879166

As required by law, the Independent Singapore and the author, Mr. Toh Han Shih have appended a correction notice. I grew up in the media business. My dad is an advertising film director and my mum was an editor at the Straits Times. Hence, I grew up around people who worked in the media and I learned that factual accuracy was something that journalist take very seriously (this being in the 70s when our then Prime Minister, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew was at his most “sue-happy”).

Then, when I started working with media people, I understood that respectable news organisations always had a system to ensure that news was as accurate as possible. Writers are supposed to do their research and copy has to go through sub-editors who act as a final check on facts being published. However, mistakes do happen and when it’s brought to the attention of the news editors, a correction is printed in the next issue. I’ve seen correction notices in publications like the Economist and Financial Times.

So, if you look at the “slip-up” by the Independent Singapore, you’ll understand that what happened is part and parcel of being in the news business and if you look at the fact that the Independent Singapore does not have the same resources as say the Straits Times, its record of publishing accurate information has been pretty good.

So, the question that needs to be asked is why was it necessary to use a Pofma order to get the correction when a simple letter or phone call to the editor or publisher would have sufficed? Pofma is an act brought about to combat “fake” information from spreading and being turned into fact. Say what you like about Pofma, but it does have a purpose in the current “Covid-19” environment. It helps to stop false information or conspiracy theories (for example, scaring people from taking a vaccine that keeps you out of the ICU in the event you get infected by a highly contagious disease).

If you look at the incident with the Independent Singapore, you cannot argue that the news site was deliberately spreading false information that was against public interest. It is at worst a case of getting a simple fact wrong. They reported that the Minister said that he wanted to step down when he didn’t say that. How does one ague that this bit of inaccurate reporting is against public interest or that it maligns or defames the minister in question.

So, the question is raised – why did the government feel that it was necessary to use the heavy hand of the law when there were more efficient and cost-effective ways of getting the correction notice. The question also exposes one of the great flaws of Pofma – namely the question of who decides what constitutes an online falsehood. Did the Minister wake up one morning and decide that the Independent Singapore was publishing “Fake News” or did have several cabinets worth of documents to prove malicious intent?

Leaving the deeper legal issues aside, a glance at the simple issue of why the heavy hand of Pofma had to be used when a simple call to the editor would have done the trick, would give one the impression that something is amiss. It seems that the powers that be have gotten to used to being believed merely for being the powers that be, that they’ve lost the ability to communicate disagreement without taking the hammer of the law to it.

Sure, our ministers are highly intelligent people with great credentials. However, since none of them have never actually had to face an environment that one could describe as “hostile.” There’s never been a need to get down on the ground and to explain your policies to the people who are affected by them. Its merely enough to speak them and beat everyone who disagrees with you with a law against fake news.

When compared to their global counterparts, our policy makers have it easy. Just look at how recently re-elected French President, Emanuel Marcon went to talk to people who were openly booing him. Say what you like about the man but he was willing to enter a hostile environment to talk to people who violently disagreed with him (while Mr. Macron has a reputation for being aloof – he has gone into crowds where he’s had eggs thrown at him and he's also been slapped):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgxYDYGR-is

 

At the age of 78, an age where people are expected to be too set in their ways to discuss things, US President Joe Bidden also goes out to talk to people who oppose not just him but what he stands for. He comes to them in person to try to get his side of the story across:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPig-AllQe8

 

Sure, both Mr. Bidden and Mr. Macron have flaws but this is the most effective way of ensuring you get the right message across. Yes, I understand that laws against online falsehoods are necessary. However, the heavy hand of the law doesn’t make you more credible. If anything, it helps fuel conspiracy theories. However, having the courage to face people who are openly hostile to you and to sit down and tell your side of the story makes you credible. Sure, you may not get mass conversions to your side but you earn respect and that in turn gives what you stand for support. It’s something that our leaders need to remember.