#Anti-POFMA

[aptiveviennapro]

Nasi Lemak: Disputed Origins? (Opinion)

Let's end this debate once and for all: the dish that I love to eat during childhood, the fragrant nasi lemak. Its origins is from Malaysia, and there's no denial.

[humanrightsupdates]

Singapore Doubles Down on Executions

The Singaporean government since mid-April has issued at least four execution notices to individuals convicted of drug-related offenses. They are among 36 death row prisoners taking part in a legal action relating to their constitutional right to legal aid following appeal. None of these prisoners currently have legal representation.

The executions of these prisoners have been put on hold, awaiting the outcome of the court application.

But the Singaporean government remains determined to use the death penalty, even as the global trend is towards abolition. On May 8, Singapore’s home minister, K. Shanmugam, announced that the Post-Appeal in Capital Cases Act (PACC), which was passed in 2022, would imminently come into force. This law will severely curtail prisoners’ ability to appeal their convictions and further undermine fair trial and due process rights in capital cases in Singapore.

In his address, in which he defended the country’s use of capital punishment as an “effective” deterrent, the home minister hit out at Singapore’s anti-death penalty activists, who have long been the target of government harassment and intimidation. He publicly named five anti-death penalty advocates, including a media outlet, who because of their activism have previously been subject to orders under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), a law that gives the government broad discretionary powers to censor online content.

The Singaporean government has a track record of silencing and intimidating opponents of the death penalty. Last year, the authorities suspended the law license of prominent human rights lawyer M. Ravi for five years: the maximum sanction for a lawyer’s misconduct. He was accused of making “grave and baseless accusations of improper conduct” on Facebook against the attorney-general, after M. Ravi managed to have the death sentence of his client, Malaysian national Gobi Avedian, set aside on the grounds of miscarriage of justice.

[ictlsg23]

SESSION 5. ANTI-HARASSMENT AND CYBERSTALKING LEGISLATION

OPTIONAL REFERENCE: L&T BOOK CHAPTER 10

Anti-Harassment and Cyberstalking Laws: The Protection from Harassment Act was passed in Parliament on 14 March 2014. The purpose and effects of the Act will be examined. In particular, the effects of (anti-)social behaviour online and the objectives of the PHA in dealing with such acts will be considered. For example, trolling, cyber-bullying and cyber-vigilantism (involving doxxing) will be considered. What is the ambit of coverage of the provisions for non-direct and secondary subjects of harassment? For example, close emotional connection or physical proximity? What should be the extent of the scope?

What were the significant changes to the PHA in the latest amendments? Do the scope of the PHA extend “person” to include non-legal entities, private and/or public; both as perpetrator and victim?

False Statements of Fact (Part 3 Div. 2 [previously section 15 only]): Consider the series of appeals in the Ting Choon Meng case. What is the purpose and effect of this part of the Act? Compare and contrast it to POFMA and its progeny. (not required for COR2226)

Cases: (for general reference only, not required for COR2226)

Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng and Another [2017] SGCA 06 (harassment, parties)

Ting Choon Meng v Attorney-General and Another [2015] SGHC 315 (harassment, parties)

Attorney-General v Lee Kwai Hou Howard, et al [2015] SGDC 114 (harassment, parties)

Malcomson Nicholas Hugh Bertram and Another v Naresh Kumar Mehta[2001] SGHC 308 (harassment)

Required Readings:

Goh Yihan, Yip Man, The Protection from Harassment Act 2014 [2014] 26 SAcLJ 700

Chan Wing Cheong, The New Offence of ‘Unlawful Stalking’ in Singapore (2014) 26 Singapore Academy of Law Journal 333 – 353

Statutes: (relevant provisions will be highlighted in class)

Protection from Harassment Act

Protection from Harassment (Amendment) Bill of 2019

References: (optional)

Restricting Publication of False Statements Using Section 15 of the Protection from Harassment Act (Law Gazette, May 2016)

Ravi Chandran, Workplace Harassment: Persons Liable and Damages Payable under the Protection from Harassment Act 2014 [2015] 27 SAcLJ 286

Goh Yihan, The Case for Legislating Harassment in Singapore [2014] 26 SAcLJ 68

Gregory Vijayendran, Lester Chua, Harassment Act: An Act to End All Acts of Harassment? (Law Gazette, June 2014(4))

Choo Zheng Xi, Fong Wei Li, When Citizen Journalism Crosses the Line: Does the Harassment Act Have An Online Bite? (Law Gazette, June 2014(2))

[agtictl23]

SESSION 7. ANTI-HARASSMENT AND CYBERSTALKING LEGISLATION

OPTIONAL REFERENCE: L&T BOOK CHAPTER 10

Anti-Harassment and Cyberstalking Laws: The Protection from Harassment Act was passed in Parliament on 14 March 2014. The purpose and effects of the Act will be examined. In particular, the effects of (anti-)social behaviour online and the objectives of the PHA in dealing with such acts will be considered. For example, trolling, cyber-bullying and cyber-vigilantism (involving doxxing) will be considered. What is the ambit of coverage of the provisions for non-direct and secondary subjects of harassment? For example, close emotional connection or physical proximity? What should be the extent of the scope?

What were the significant changes to the PHA in the latest amendments? Do the scope of the PHA extend “person” to include non-legal entities, private and/or public; both as perpetrator and victim?

False Statements of Fact (Part 3 Div. 2 [previously section 15 only]): Consider the series of appeals in the Ting Choon Meng case. What is the purpose and effect of this part of the Act? Compare and contrast it to POFMA and its progeny.

Cases: (for general reference only)

Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng and Another [2017] SGCA 06 (harassment, parties)

Malcomson Nicholas Hugh Bertram and Another v Naresh Kumar Mehta[2001] SGHC 308 (harassment)

Required Readings:

Goh Yihan, Yip Man, The Protection from Harassment Act 2014 [2014] 26 SAcLJ 700

Chan Wing Cheong, The New Offence of ‘Unlawful Stalking’ in Singapore (2014) 26 Singapore Academy of Law Journal 333 – 353

Statutes: (relevant provisions will be highlighted in class)

Protection from Harassment Act

References: (optional)

Restricting Publication of False Statements Using Section 15 of the Protection from Harassment Act (Law Gazette, May 2016)

Ravi Chandran, Workplace Harassment: Persons Liable and Damages Payable under the Protection from Harassment Act 2014 [2015] 27 SAcLJ 286

Goh Yihan, The Case for Legislating Harassment in Singapore [2014] 26 SAcLJ 68

Gregory Vijayendran, Lester Chua, Harassment Act: An Act to End All Acts of Harassment? (Law Gazette, June 2014(4))

Choo Zheng Xi, Fong Wei Li, When Citizen Journalism Crosses the Line: Does the Harassment Act Have An Online Bite? (Law Gazette, June 2014(2))

[southeastasianists]

Reasons for the ranking

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s government is always quick to sue critical journalists, apply pressure to make them unemployable, or even force them to leave the country.

The Media Development Authority has the power to censor all forms of journalistic content.

Defamation suits are common and may sometimes be accompanied by a sedition charge that is punishable by up to 21 years in prison.

The political control is coupled with an economic straitjacket. Two business groups control all of Singapore’s print and broadcast media. One, MediaCorp, is owned by a state investment company. The other, Singapore Press Holdings, is supposedly privately-owned but the Government appoints those who run it. As a result, self-censorship is widespread, including within the alternative independent media, which are intimidated by the judicial and economic pressure. The red lines imposed by the authorities, known by Singapore’s journalists as “OB markers” (for out-of-bounds markers), apply to an ever-wider range of issues and public figures. The authorities have also started sending journalists emails threatening them with up to 20 years in prison if they don’t remove annoying articles and fall into line.

The Orwellian provisions of the “anti-fake news” law, “Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act” (POFMA) adopted in 2019 forces all media outlets and digital platforms to post “corrections” to any content that the Government may arbitrarily deem to be “incorrect”. This censorship bureau 2.0 has enabled the Government to impose its own version on a range of subjects including the death penalty, the salary paid to the prime minister’s wife, and its handling of the COVID-19 crisis.

Singapore’s neighbouring countries, Malaysia, ranked 119 on the index, saw a steep drop of 18 positions from its previous ranking, while Indonesia, at 113, saw an improvement of 6 from its previous year’s ranking.

[coralstudiies]

Hi!! I just wanted to tell you that your advice for ss eoy was super helpful thank youuu. My srq was on negative impacts of diverse society and my sbq was on POFMA (the latest anti-fake news law) which coincidently comes into working tdy -_- but anyway I think I did well!! I could write a few lines for srq and not stare blankly YAY also I managed to finish the paper!! Thank youu

hell yeah gimme five !!!!!! we dont bow down to ss :^) negative impacts of society imo is easier to rmb because it's something that surfaces in daily life and i'm glad you could answer!

if you still need help in the future feel free to pm/ask me <3

[mytracknews]

Singapore invokes anti misinformation law after Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal’s tweet on ‘new COVID-19 variant’

Singapore invokes anti misinformation law after Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal’s tweet on ‘new COVID-19 variant’

New Delhi: Singapore authorities have invoked its anti misinformation regulation, the POFMA or Protection from Online Falsehoods & Manipulation Act a day after Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal tweeted in regards to the coronavirus variant from Singapore. The nation‘s well-being ministry has instructed the POFMA workplace to situation “General Correction Directions” to Facebook, Twitter.…

[breaking-news-portal]

Singapore invokes anti misinformation law after Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal’s tweet on ‘new COVID-19 variant’

Singapore invokes anti misinformation law after Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal’s tweet on ‘new COVID-19 variant’

New Delhi: Singapore government has invoked its anti misinformation law, the POFMA or Protection from Online Falsehoods & Manipulation Act a day after Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal tweeted about the coronavirus variant from Singapore. The country’s health ministry has instructed the POFMA office to issue “General Correction Directions” to Facebook, Twitter. The notice is not directed at…

[2020law405]

Project 4 Comparing Anti-Harassment and False Light Laws

Generally, compare PHA anti-harassment and anti-stalking provisions to that of a similar legislation from a suitable jurisdiction of your choice. Compare and contrast the solutions that the orders relating to false statements provide for private individuals and entities to other laws that also deal with falsehoods against an individual or entity (false light laws in Singapore).  Also, reconcile and explain the role and liability (or exemptions) for internet intermediaries under the PHA to the POFMA in relation to false statements of fact and explain the rationale (and effect of the distinctions, if any).

Presentation: The presentation must be made by all members concurrently or consecutively. You may use any presentation tools or style. Time your presentation for up to 90 minutes, including question and answer. You may approach your TA to clarify any ambiguities you may have about the question, but he/she will not provide advice in answering the question. The presentations may be done in the seminar room or via Zoom. Please notify the TA beforehand. In the event of the former, the seminar room will be made accessible before noon so that you can be in the room for the zoom seminar and have time to setup for the presentation during the break.

Project Paper: The assignment paper must follow the following requirements -(a) between 6000-8000 word count (not including foot/end notes); (b) Times New Roman font; (c) font size 12; (d) single spaced. You may use graphics if you decide that it will help make your answer clearer. Submit an outline or draft of your paper by midnight the day before your presentation with the slides via email to the instructor (cc to the TA). The final paper should be submitted by the end of the day before the next/following seminar (i.e. you have 2 weeks from these instructions to complete the written assignment) which shall then be assessed and graded. Use the presentation to gather feedback, if any, to improve on the assignment paper.

[magzoso-tech]

New Post has been published on https://magzoso.com/tech/coronavirus-sends-asias-social-media-censors-into-overdrive/

Coronavirus Sends Asia's Social Media Censors Into Overdrive

Deluged by misinformation about the new coronavirus on social media, some Asian governments are fighting back with arrests, fines and fake news laws – something free speech advocates fear will entrench measures that can also silence dissent.

At least 16 people have been arrested over coronavirus posts in Malaysia, India, Thailand, Indonesia and Hong Kong, while Singapore has used its controversial new “fake news” law, POFMA, to force media outlets and social media users to carry government warnings on their posts and articles saying they contain falsehoods.

“Fortunately, we now have POFMA to deal with these fake news,” said Lawrence Wong, one of the ministers heading a Singapore government task force to halt the spread of the virus.

Many details of the new flu-like coronavirus that surfaced just weeks ago in the Chinese city of Wuhan are unknown. As the death toll has passed 420, anxiety has been fuelled by social media posts ranging from the bizarre to the malicious.

Posts include speculation about how the virus can be caught – through a video game according to one – or avoided – a government minister in Myanmar was rebuked for sharing a post that recommended eating more onions – to local scares of deaths or anti-Chinese attacks.

“What I call the ‘moron strain’ has created a global, social media-driven panic that is in turn feeding on itself,” wrote Karim Raslan in his regionally syndicated column, noting how much greater the challenge had become for governments to manage.

At least five people were arrested and released on bail in India’s southwestern state of Kerala over WhatsApp messages, said Aadhithya R, District Police Chief of Thrissur. Six people were arrested in Malaysia on suspicion of spreading false news.

In Vietnam, where an army of cyber-censors tracks social media comment for the communist government, at least nine people have been fined and three celebrities asked to explain their actions over posts about coronavirus.

Thailand hailed the success of an “anti-fake news centre” it set up last year. Dozens of staff reviewed nearly 7,600 posts in four days from Jan. 25 – leading to 22 posts being highlighted as false on its website and two arrests under computer crimes laws.

“The anti-fake news centre is working intensively to verify these rumours and communicating truth to the people,” said Digital Minister Puttipong Punnakanta.

Thailand is among countries where laws on social media posts have been toughened in recent years despite complaints from human rights groups that they could be used to target government opponents.

Control Free-speech advocates are wary that the campaign against coronavirus could help governments extend their control as well as damaging the health campaign.

“Criminalisation of speech, even if targeted at falsehoods, is highly likely to stifle the real time sharing of information that is essential during epidemics,” said Matthew Bugher, Head of Asia Programme for free expression campaign group Article 19.

China has long censored social media heavily and some critics say that may have delayed information on the emerging virus in Wuhan – and therefore potential countermeasures.

Eight people were arrested after being accused of spreading rumours about illness in early January, but the case was dropped last week amid growing public anger over the handling of the new crisis.

Meanwhile, Tencent Holdings’ ubiquitous messaging app WeChat has added tools to help debunk virus rumours. The official People’s Daily has also introduced a tool to help people verify reports.

Western social media companies are also stepping up action. Facebook Inc has said it would take down misinformation about the coronavirus – a rare departure from the usual approach to health content by the world’s biggest social network.

Government threats Taiwan has warned of punishment for spreading disinformation. South Korean police were working with telecoms regulators to block “false information”, Yonhap news agency said.

Indonesian police said two people had been arrested for spreading fake news and face charges that could see them jailed for up to five years. Hong Kong police said a shopping mall security guard was arrested for spreading false news about infections.

In Singapore, some said the government was using its new fake news law responsibly.

“Many examples of misinformation, confusing data and outright fake news present a clear and present danger to public safety, health and security,” said Nicholas Fang, founder of Singapore consultancy Black Dot Research.

But not all were convinced.

Journalist and activist Kirsten Han is among those who have been given a government correction notice – in her case for sharing an article related to state executions last month rather than anything to do with coronavirus.

“Just because there are relatively more justifiable uses of a #fakenews law, it doesn’t mean that the law was well-drafted and can’t be an instrument of abuse and oppression,” she commented on Twitter.

© Thomson Reuters 2020

[feliciateoyq-blog]

Culture of Fear

In this post, I will be discussing a new legislation proposed by the Singapore Government with regards to fake news and how it possibly affects people in my country.

On 1stApril 2019, the Government came up with a newly proposed anti-fake news law called the “Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act” (POFMA). While the Government has stated that this law only applies to “false statements of fact” and not criticism or opinions [1], many have argued that it merely serves as another way the Government is controlling free speech and censorship in Singapore.

In the eyes of the SG Government, this new legislation is important and necessary because the spread of misinformation and fake news threatens Singapore’s social cohesion and possibly our national security. It is Singapore’s diversity that makes it particularly vulnerable to such problems. However, it’s difficult for this legislation (or any for that matter) to tackle this problem because most social issues are not debates between fact vs fiction but between ideology or worldview, where everyone has their own opinion on what is true and false. People will naturally come into conflict when we present our ideologies and personal beliefs as platonic truths.

In my opinion, this new law simply reinforces the culture of fear that already exists amongst us Singaporeans. People are more than likely to accept that it’s probably better to self-censor. After all, we all know what is likely to happen to someone who actively proclaims his/her belief in an “anti-establishment” or goes against the Government’s values. A well-known example is, 20-year old Amos Yee [2] who makes political YouTube videos and had compared Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew to Hitler and Jesus, as well as offensive videos to the Muslim and Christian communities. Amos Yee’s actions resulted in him being jailed and fined on more than one occasion. The harsh sentence caught the attention of The United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye [3]. He advised Singapore to review the sentencing as it was a violation of human rights to the freedom of expression.

The POFMA will affect ordinary citizens like myself more than it does for journalists who do not do their due diligence before reporting on controversial topics or spread misinformation. I find myself refraining from engaging in any online discussion about politics and shy away from journalists that are looking for people to interview about genuine problems that result in public displeasure.

Perhaps the Government fails to see how such legislation and censorship laws is undermining a healthy democracy. Murdock [4] states that discursive openness is also considered sensible in a democratic society. All views should be heard and understood for people to discern the truth and for society to self-maintain. While self-censorship and fake news are both undesirable outcomes for society, the Government needs to understand that it is driven by fear and people fear what they don’t trust.

References:

[1]https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/govt-makes-initial-decision-on-falsehood-but-courts-are-final-arbiter-of-truth-k-shanmugam

[2]https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/public-prosecutor-v-amos-yee-pang-sang/

[3]https://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16213&LangID=E

[4]Murdock, G. (1991). Patrolling the Border: British Broadcasting and the Irish Question in the 1980s. Journal Of Communication, 41(4), 104-115, Issn: 0021-9916 doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1991.tb02334.x

[twistarticle]

Singapore orders FB to correct post under anti-fake news law

Singapore orders FB to correct post under anti-fake news law

Singapore, Nov 29 (IANS) The Singapore government on Friday ordered social media giant Facebook to correct a post made by one of its users, marking one of the city-state’s first attempts to enforce its new law to combat so-called “fake news.”

The Singaporean minister for home affairs, K Shanmugam, said in a statement that he had instructed the office administering the law “known as the Protection…

[southeastasianists]

Observers have been waiting to see how Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (known more commonly as POFMA) would be applied since it was passed in Parliament in May this year, coming into effect on 2 October. But it was only in the past week that the first directive was issued under the law – quickly followed by the second and third.

The fact is that, in Singapore’s current (and long-standing) political landscape, the only political party that has direct access to POFMA’s powers is the ruling People’s Action Party. Using this law, the party is free to take aim at political opponents or anti-PAP platforms—as they have done. No other political party or civil society group is able to wield such power, even though falsehoods and misleading claims are also circulated about opposition politicians and activists online, including from pro-PAP pages.

What POFMA does, then, is give the PAP government more control over discourse in Singapore, allowing it to take aim at what it says are false facts or implied false facts while asserting its own set of “correct facts”. To further cement this imbalance in power, Section 61 of law also allows ministers to “exempt any person or class of persons from any provision of this Act”, thus allowing the PAP government to grant immunity from this law to anyone they choose.

[satukanal]

Apakah Virus Corona Mengancam Hak Asasi Manusia?

https://www.satukanal.com/apakah-virus-corona-mengancam-hak-asasi-manusia/

Apakah Virus Corona Mengancam Hak Asasi Manusia?

SATUKANAL – Virus corona bukan satu-satunya hal yang menyebar. Baru-baru ini dilaporkan bahwa pihak berwenang di Thailand telah menangkap dua orang karena mengunggah hoaks tentang virus corona. Padahal, pejabat pemerintah setempat telah mewanti-wanti masyarakat agar tak gegabah berbagi informasi yang salah tentang penyakit tersebut.

Menteri Ekonomi Digital Thailand, Buddhipongse Punnakanta mengatakan, keduanya didakwa melanggar tindak kejahatan daring atas unggahan media sosial tentang virus mirip SARS. Dalam ketetapan hukum negara itu, kejahatan serupa dapat dijatuhi hukuman hingga lima tahun penjara.

Berita palsu yang mereka sebarkan terdiri dari klip video yang menyesatkan tentang virus corona. Sementara yang lain, menyebarkan informasi palsu tentang dugaan kasus virus corona di kota tepi pantai.

“Mereka sudah mengakui bahwa mereka membuat berita palsu,” kata Buddhipongse. Dia juga meminta masyarakat untuk lebih waspada. Selain menetapkan sebagai tersangka, aparat juga sedang melakukan penyelidikan yang lebih jauh.

Kasus serupa juga terjadi di Malaysia. Empat orang ditangkap karena mengunggah informasi palsu tentang virus corona di media sosial. Menteri Dalam Negeri Malaysia, Muhyiddin Yassin dikutip dari kantor berita lokal mengingatkan masyarakat untuk tidak menyebarkan berita palsu tentang virus corona.

Muhyiddin bahkan mengingatkan bahwa pihak berwenang secara aktif memburu para pelanggar. “Berita palsu seperti ini tidak baik untuk ketertiban umum, itu sebabnya kami mengambil tindakan tegas,” katanya.

Di Malaysia sendiri, aturan soal hoaks masih menjadi perdebatan. Pasalnya, saat ini koalisi penguasa telah mencabut undang-undang anti hoaks. Para kritikus mengklaim bahwa undang-undang itu dirancang untuk meredam perbedaan pendapat.

Di Indonesia, beragam hoaks soal virus corona juga menyebar cepat. Kanal-kanal, media sosial, hingga aplikasi perpesanan menjadi sarana. Kementerian Kominfo sebenarnya juga telah memberikan klarifikasi-klarifikasi atas hoaks yang beredar. Namun, untuk tindakan tegas penangkapan penyebar hoaks tampaknya masih belum dilakukan.

Wilayah ASEAN secara keseluruhan menderita karena kurangnya kebebasan sipil seperti kebebasan berekspresi, kebebasan pers, dan kebebasan untuk mendapatkan informasi.

Singapura menerima kritik global baru-baru ini atas implementasi dan penegakan hukum berita palsu. Yakni yang dikenal sebagai Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA).

Menurut World Freedom Freedom Index Reporters Without Borders tahun 2019, negara ASEAN terbaik dalam hal kebebasan pers adalah Malaysia. Itupun, masih menempati urutan ke-123 di antara 180 negara di dalam indeks.

Prestasi Malaysia itu adalah lompatan besar dibandingkan tahun-tahun sebelumnya. Jajaran pemerintahan baru, janji reformasi, serta pencabutan AFNA, dinilai memiliki andil. Sebab, Malaysia pada 2018 posisinya di angka 145 dan 144 pada 2017 silam.

Perbaikan serupa dapat diamati di Thailand yang berada di posisi 136 pada 2019, 140 di 2018, dan 142 di 2017. Dalam kasus Thailand, pemilihan umum Maret 2019 membawa negara itu keluar dari kekuasaan militer untuk pertama kalinya sejak kudeta militer tahun 2014.

Namun, karena virus corona dan berita palsu yang beredar di sekitarnya terus menyebar, tampaknya pemerintah seperti Thailand dan Malaysia yang telah meningkatkan tingkat kebebasan sipil akan kembali terpaksa melakukan pengawasan ketat.

Hal ini dapat dimengerti karena berita palsu tidak hanya menyebarkan kepanikan, tetapi juga dapat menyebabkan publik bertindak secara tidak rasional.

Tampaknya publik yang perlu memastikan bahwa harus berhati-hati dalam memilih konten yang akan dibagikan di media sosial. Jangan sampai pemerintah turun tangan membatasi – dan mungkin memotong – kebebasan yang diharapkan semua pihak.

Pewarta: (Mg) Nuha Faza Redaktur: N Ratri Sumber: theaseanpost.com

[yeskraim]

The children’s storyteller helping Taiwan sort fact from fiction

Taipei, Taiwan – Children’s storyteller Billion Lee is on the front line in the battle against the online disinformation she worries is undermining Taiwan‘s democracy, one of the most vibrant in Asia.

As a co-founder of Cofacts, a collaborative platform, the 29-year-old helps people verify videos and stories they share on LINE, the Japanese instant messaging application that has some 21 million monthly users – both companies and individuals – on the self-ruled island.

“Taiwanese are unclear of the difference between fact and opinion, that’s not in our education,” Lee said.

Set up in 2016, Cofacts is designed as a chatbot and receives approximately 250 questionable messages for verification each week. 

Each story or video is checked against the platform’s ever-growing database of similar articles or videos that have already been fact-checked, as well as online tools before the outcome is messaged back to the sender. 

Most of the fact-check editors are volunteers who collaborate on each query.

Concerns about disinformation, particularly from mainland China, have grown since President Tsai Ing-wen first took power in 2016 and China, which sees Taiwan as part of its territory, stepped up pressure on her government. She was returned this month for a second term in a landslide.

Ming-Yeh Rawnsley, a research associate at SOAS’s Centre of Taiwan Studies in London and founding editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Taiwan Studies, said that it was relatively easy to spread fake news in Taiwan because of the popularity of social media platforms and messaging apps like LINE with their group chat features.

LINE is hugely popular in Taiwan and many share pictures and information on the Japanese messaging app [File: Toru Hanai/Reuters]

“The news items they [people] circulated via their own social media networks were more on election-related items,” Rawnsley told Al Jazeera. “Social media becomes fertile ground for misinformation and partial information.”

‘Main’ target

Analysts have said China is targeting the island’s media.

“China is actively spreading false and misleading information abroad, with Taiwan as one of its main targets,” the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg wrote in its V-Dem Annual Democracy Report 2019, which was published in May last year.

“By circulating misleading information on social media and investing in Taiwanese media outlets, China seeks to interfere in Taiwan’s domestic politics and to engineer a complete unification,” the report added.

In June, thousands took to the streets of the capital to protest against the presence of so-called “red media” outlets in Taiwan, publications said to be influenced by China. Last month parliament passed an anti-infiltration law – legislation to counter the mainland’s influence on the island’s politics through the illegal funding of media and politicians.

Cofacts’s Lee said she suspected some of the fake news stories they discovered originated from the mainland because the posts used different words and simplified Mandarin, in contrast to Taiwan’s traditional script. 

But it is not only China.

In the run-up to this month’s election, some disinformation was found to have originated from Taiwanese politicians and their political supporters.

Roy Ngerng, a researcher at the National Taiwan University (NTU)’s Risk Society and Policy Research Centre, who studies the issue, said identity politics is key to the spread of such disinformation given the clearly defined split between those who identify more as Taiwanese and those who identify more with China.

“Depending on their political alignment, they would then fall prey to the type of disinformation based on their political beliefs, though it [is] clear the disinformation being spread by the pro-KMT camp is more pervasive,” he told Al Jazeera. The KMT or Kuomintang is Taiwan’s pro-China party.

Supporters of Han Kuo-yu, the pro-China KMT’s election candidate; academics say Taiwan’s clear political identities help feed the spread of disinformation [File: Ng Han Guan/AP Photo]

On an island that was governed by martial law between 1949 and 1987, Ngerng added that some were also still adjusting to the democratic environment. 

“Some among the older generation who grew up under an authoritarian regime are more polarised and less critical of the news they absorb, and are more entrenched in taking political sides,” Ngerng said.

“They tend to be faithful to specific TV channels based on their political affiliation,” he added.

As of 2018, Taiwan had five terrestrial television stations, 65 cable television operators and 252 newspaper publishers, regulated through the Radio and Television Act, which is supposed to ensure media independence and professionalism.

According to the Reporters Without Borders, Taiwan is second only to South Korea in the Asia-Pacific in terms of media freedom and ranks 42nd out of 180 countries and territories in the 2019 World Press Freedom Index. 

‘Susceptible to disinformation’

Concerns about fake news have increased around the region – and around the world – as a political debate has moved online and onto social media and messaging apps.

In Singapore, the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) came into effect in October, giving the government the power to order corrections be placed next to posts it deems to be false.

Critics questioned whether the government, which has been in power since the 1960s and has all but six of the 89 elected seats in parliament, should really be making that decision.

It has already made a number of orders, including against opposition politicians, and is now facing a court case brought by the Singapore Democratic Party after a minister ordered the opposition party to place a “correction” next to one of its posts.

People learn how to spot and report suspected fake news at an event organised by a Taiwanese NGO called Fake News Cleaner in December [Ben Blanchard/Reuters]

In Thailand, the government set up an “anti-fake news” centre last November, while Vietnam has a cybersecurity law that has been used against people making critical comments on social media.

But other countries are reluctant to adopt such legislation for fear of undermining the democracy they say they are trying to protect.

Malaysia last year repealed the Fake News Law brought in by the previous government just weeks before the 2018 election, and Taiwan, while it has passed the anti-infiltration law, may not want to bring in more regulation.

“This contravenes the very principle of free speech and human rights in a democracy,” NTU’s Ngerng said.

“Greater education and media literacy are better tools to address disinformation if the aim is to promote democratic thinking and development,” he said. 

Lee hopes Cofacts will go some way towards helping the people of Taiwan be more discerning about the information they receive and verify its authenticity before sharing. 

But she also knows that fact-checking is only likely to become more challenging as technologies come online that make it easier to create and disseminate questionable content.

“You know these new media outlets, new [YouTube] channels, new information are all changing, then we have to pay more attention to this [change],” Lee said.

“We hope we can help.”

Read More

The post The children’s storyteller helping Taiwan sort fact from fiction appeared first on Gadgets To Make Life Easier.

from WordPress https://ift.tt/3aqaty1 via IFTTT