
Singapore tells Facebook to correct post under new fake news law - djsumdog
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-singapore-fakenews-idUSKBN1Y3093
======
qeng-ho
I'm Singaporean, and completely not surprised to see this appear on HN.

As with many places, the situation in my country is a bit more nuanced than a
simple "the ruling party has ruled the country since 1965". Civilisation is
the surrender of varying degrees of civil liberty for security and safety, and
over here we definitely surrender more degrees of civil liberty for the safety
and security of our streets. As another user put it, essentially a benevolent
dictatorship, emphasis on the benevolent. For the most part, the ruling party
has done a good job with the administration of the government. Things are fast
and efficient. Is it worth the trade? It depends on your perspective. Even as
a liberal, I agree that the paternalism of the government is not without its
merits.

There were quite a lot of push-back on the POFMA (what the fake news law is
called) among the people, though our politicians, no doubt because of their
same-party membership, barely discussed anything concrete in our parliamentary
debates. In the end, the law was passed because of course it would be.

~~~
RavlaAlvar
Genuinely asking. Do most of the population believe Singapore’s authoritarian
government would stay benevolent??

~~~
irjustin
As an US expat living in SG, I would say yes.

Singapore is the first place where I actually began to question whether
democracy was the absolute way. Democracy was how I was raised. Overall, I
still believe it is the way long term, but what can you do when you have a
single, unified government that cares for its people is simply amazing.

Safest in the world, hands down. This can be felt in every day life. I hold
tables while I get my lunch with my cell phone. I've even dared it in public
"hawker centers" a number of times. My friends have had stuff stolen, but that
was in the bathroom where there's no "watchful eye". My kid can run/play
freely and I only worry about her running into traffic.

A about 1-2 years ago, someone was stabbed to death in the central business
district. It was the biggest headline for ages - murder of passion from
father-in-law. That's it... nothing else. I don't think/worry about guns -
ever.

"Hawker Centers" are basically food for the people. Each meal can be had for
US$2-4. I live in public housing, HDB, and while that sounds weird - 70%+ is
public housing. i.e. only PR or citizens may purchase (I can rent as an
expat). This keeps the price of homes at a relatively reasonable amount.
US$250k - US$600k. Housing is not perfect but it is way better than stateside
problems.

There are dark sides, do not get me wrong (built on the backs of migrant
workers who can never gain status - is just one. Black and Chinese built US
but gained status eventually... migrants can never gain status here and
continue to build this country), but they're not nearly as dark as others.

Is it worth it? I say if you are willing to submit yourself, it completely is.

~~~
bkor
> Safest in the world, hands down.

Any figures to back that up? It's said that nothing gets stolen in Singapore,
until you speak to Singaporeans. Bikes still get stolen for instance. The city
seems super clean, but mainly because low paid workers clean the city really
often. If a Singaporean visits another country you'll notice that they're used
to the city being cleaned often, not so much that they're behaving
differently.

Your "Hawker Centers" have people in their 70s bent forward cleaning up tables
to some earn money. Those centers are cheap, but why does the benevolent
government not care for those people?

Further, Singapore is pretty much a city, nothing more. Being isolated from
any other country helps a lot too.

I think you too easily dismiss the "dark sides".

> My kid can run/play freely and I only worry about her running into traffic.

This is the same as a lot of other countries.

IMO the biggest benefit of Singapore is being a small city on pretty much an
island.

~~~
bufferout
Keeping the elderly working is not an absolute negative.

~~~
squiggleblaz
Keeping the elderly working is slave labor. Instead, you should make sure that
there's always opportunities for them to do meaningful work.

~~~
Infinitesimus
That's an interesting take. Why do you define it as slave labor?

------
woohuiren
Just so you know, this law doesn't apply the govt themselves.

In 2018, a historian criticized this and said that the govt broke this fake
news law and that the law should apply to govt too.

However, govt said that the historian's evidence were incorrect even though no
other historians dispute this fact.

See: [https://medium.com/@pj_85357/follow-up-submission-to-the-
sel...](https://medium.com/@pj_85357/follow-up-submission-to-the-select-
committee-on-deliberate-online-falsehoods-parliament-of-f1c34a2d9365)

~~~
powerapple
did he go to court and a judge said the evidence were incorrect?

~~~
tdsamardzhiev
one does not simply sue a military dictatorship

~~~
creddit
I'm not sure Singapore's government falls under a military dictatorship by any
means.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Singapore](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Singapore)

~~~
tdsamardzhiev
I'll counter your wikipedia link with one of my own.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regimes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regimes)

Not seeking to discredit the ruling party. What they've done with Singapore is
nothing short of a miracle. But the fact is that they're still backed up by a
ridiculously strong army, and the opposition party exists just so they can say
there is one (but is frequently bullied regardless).

~~~
yorwba
Singapore is classified as changing from civilian dictatorship to military
dictatorship in 2004 in the source data [0] for that article because the newly
elected Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was a brigadier general until 1984. So
it's for purely formal reasons, not because there was a military takeover.

Note that by this measure, there can be "military democracies", such as the
U.S. during 55 years (in 1946-2008) where the president was ex-military (e.g.
Bush).

[0]
[https://sites.google.com/site/joseantoniocheibub/datasets/de...](https://sites.google.com/site/joseantoniocheibub/datasets/democracy-
and-dictatorship-revisited)

~~~
ValentineC
> _Singapore is classified as changing from civilian dictatorship to military
> dictatorship in 2004 in the source data for that article because the newly
> elected Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was a brigadier general until 1984.
> So it 's for purely formal reasons, not because there was a military
> takeover._

The Singapore government has been trying to move away from this — a
significant part by requesting that the press address them as "Mr", instead of
their military ranks. There was a time when Lee Hsien Loong was addressed as
`BG (NS) Lee Hsien Loong` everywhere [1].

One of the potential heirs to the Prime Ministership is the ex-Chief of Army,
Chan Chun Sing [2]. It's very rare to see either the media, or the government
themselves, to address him as `MG (NS) Chan Chun Sing` in their publications.

[1] Example from a government website:
[https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/speeches/record-
detail...](https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/speeches/record-
details/77e6b874-115d-11e3-83d5-0050568939ad)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Chun_Sing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Chun_Sing)

------
diveanon
Why am I not surprised that it is Singapore doing this.

That country is an authoritarian nanny state disguised as Disney Land.

I have visited many times and have lots of friends there. Nobody cares about
freedom of the press because they are well paid and comfortable.

They have truly figured out how to placate the masses.

~~~
ulfw
It's interesting to see people in the west often lauding Singapore for that
and vilifying China if they do the same.

~~~
archibaldJ
I've lived in Singapore for more than half of my life and met expats there
from all walks of life. And I would tell you Singapore is very well integrated
with western values, both in terms of the cultures and the social-political
aspects of many things (other than weed and cocaine, etc; but you can
certainly get your hand on some lsd if you know the right contacts). Anyway
the point is that Singapore is very westernised and very, very clean in the
conservative way - it's like a little Sydney without all the underground and
neo-liberalism - and that's why the west love it (i.e. in general, especially
the Rights - I've not known a self-declared Left that could stand staying in
Singapore for more than a week). There is just a tremendous amount of
logistics transactions happening everyday there.

I've just moved back to China now and I would have to say that China does the
opposite of embracing western values. They go with, well, "the Chinese way".
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21602206](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21602206)

~~~
bkor
> And I would tell you Singapore is very well integrated with western values
> [..] > I've not known a self-declared Left that could stand staying in
> Singapore for more than a week

Weird combination of statements. It gives the impression (though you probably
mean something different that anyone not liking it is 1) "left" 2) not part of
Western values

Left vs right is pretty useless distinction anyway. Someone who is considered
"left" in US is IMO very much "right" in Netherlands. Plus some parties on the
right or left differ greatly on how they see things. E.g. not every "left"
party will align with what someone agrees with; else there wouldn't be
multiple parties. Those parties differ more greatly than "a little bit left"
vs "a lot left" (with some exceptions).

Further, I reject the notion that someone who is left wouldn't be able to
stand staying in Singapore for more than a week. Though biggest problem is
that after a week there's not much to do (for anyone reading along, all the
Singaporean colleagues completely agree with me on this!) :-P

~~~
archibaldJ
Yeah I guess I had mistakenly used left vs right as a synonym for the more
liberal-ish vs the more conservative-ish and that is indeed probably an
oversimplification.

Anyway I was talking more about the "liveable" aspects of Singapore. Maybe not
a week as a tourist but say living longer than a month there. The night life
is pretty boring, the underground scene had dissipated in the 2000s and the
art scene is not at all vibrant (though things are gradually improving). I
would say it doesn't enjoy lots of things liberal-ish cities (like Berlin, NY,
etc) enjoy. But there is stability and comfort. It's just that people that is
more liberal-ish would ultimately leave the country and live overseas, or if
circumstances allow they would start an NGO or something and try to improve
things to have more freedom of expressions, more social acceptance for LGBT,
etc. But ultimately it is a very conservative place with things like
homophobia and an embedded racism. And that's the point I'm trying to make.

------
choonway
My prediction is that Facebook is going to resort to "this content is banned
in your country" route.

Only way to access this would be through VPN... if everybody in the country
uses VPN, they govt would probably start copying the Great firewall of China.

~~~
trevyn
It’s getting there:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Singa...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Singapore)

~~~
ylyn
The internet "censorship" in SG has been around for a long time, and it hasn't
really changed. It's a symbolic block that ISPs sometimes forget to even
implement.

------
headsoup
Is there a factsheet or written definition for what actually constitutes 'Fake
News' or is it "news I don't agree with?"

There were perfectly reasonable legal words available to describe fraudulent,
false or factually inaccurate statements, it's sad that 'Fake News' has caught
on so well as though it is a meaningful term.

~~~
Iv
> the law, known as the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act
> (POFMA)

Singapore is an english-speaking country, they used valid words to describe
"fake news"

~~~
ajdlinux
Malaysia, where Malay is the official language but much of the legal system
still runs in English, passed a law that was in fact entitled the "Anti-Fake
News Act 2018" and very much uses "fake news" as a legal term.

[http://www.federalgazette.agc.gov.my/outputaktap/20180411_80...](http://www.federalgazette.agc.gov.my/outputaktap/20180411_803_BI_WJW010830%20BI.pdf)

Thankfully, the new government has repealed this ridiculous legislation.

------
robomartin
I have a lateral question about Singapore. Everything I have read about the
country says that it is one of the best in the world for business and, in
particular, startups. Yet some of the commentary here leads me to believe
there's a dark side to the reality of this nation.

Anyone with first hand knowledge care to comment on this?

I am puzzled because it so happens we might have to do some business in
Singapore and a friend was telling me about the business/startup environment.
I did a bunch of research and found articles with nothing but praise. Is the
truth more nuanced than this?

~~~
paulmooreparks
I've been living and working in Singapore for two years now, coming from the
United States. I'm a libertarian who finds politics and economics in the US to
be horribly broken, and while in principle I don't agree with authoritarianism
or planned economies, I'm also of the mind that one cannot apply a single
concept of government to every culture. That's a colonial mindset.

America's liberal tradition came from many, many factors over hundreds of
years. By comparison, Singapore is still in its infancy. While I don't agree
with everything I see here, the system does work.

All that said, I'm applying for permanent residency here, because when I look
at what's happening in America, in either major party, I don't have much of a
desire to return. At least the Singaporean government is much more honest
about what it is. It's not perfect, by any means, and it's expensive to live
here, but it's clean and safe, it has the world's best airport, and it is a
great place to do business.

~~~
ponyfleisch
I've met quite a few libertarians in Singapore but i continue to be puzzled by
why someone with libertarian leanings would choose to live here.

Can you explain why it appeals to you? Do the low taxes make up for the
limitations on personal liberty?

------
riffic
Journalists need to look at alternative platforms, such as those under the
control of their own organization. The Fediverse is a good place to be.

~~~
inglor
I recently joined WikiTribune which is supposed to solve just that. It's still
invite-only with a huge mailing list but you can get in early if you donate (I
donate).

If anyone wants an invite email me at username @ gmail and I will try to send
everyone invites (I have like 200) when I get back from JSConf.

~~~
riffic
I wonder if Jimbo Wales would consider white labeling this app or in providing
managed nodes to media / content providers (in the way G Suite provides
managed email services to third party orgs). There's a need to maintain
control of the namespace and content and you lose that on yet another walled
garden service.

------
knzhou
Reserving any judgment on this specific action, I just note that it's all
consistent with how Singapore has treated this in the past. From Lee Kuan
Yew's autobiography:

> My early experiences in Singapore and Malaya shaped my views about the claim
> of the press to be the defender of truth and freedom of speech. The freedom
> of the press was the freedom of its owners to advance their personal and
> class interests.

(There follow a few examples of rich individuals forming their own newspapers,
to push their preferred politics.)

> In the 1980s, Western-owned English-language publications became a
> significant presence in Singapore. [...] We have always banned communist
> publications; no Western media or media organization has ever protested
> against this. We have not banned any Western newspaper or journal. Yet they
> frequently refused us the right of reply when they misrepresented us. We
> decided in 1986 to enact a law to restrict the sale or distribution of
> foreign publications that had engaged in the domestic politics of Singapore.
> One of our tests for "engaging in the politics of Singapore" was whether,
> after they had misreported or slanted stories on Singapore, they refused to
> publish our reply. We did not ban them, only restricted the number of copies
> they sold. [...] This would reduce their advertising revenue but did not
> stop their reports from circulating. They could not accuse us of being
> afraid to have their reports read.

> Singapore's domestic debate is a matter for Singaporeans. [...] We cannot
> allow [American journalists] to assume a role in Singapore that the American
> media play in America. [...] Indeed, America's Federal Communications
> Commission regulations bar foreigners from owning more than 25 percent of a
> TV or radio station. Only Americans can control a business which influences
> opinion in America.

> Advanced in information technology, satellite broadcasting, and the Internet
> will enable Western media networks to saturate our domestic audience with
> their reports and views. Countries that try to block the use of IT will
> lose. We have to learn to manage this relentless flood of information so
> that the Singapore government's point of view is not smothered by the
> foreign media.

The memoir is incredibly prescient. Many of the policy debates held in
Singapore in the 1980s mirror those held in America over the last three years,
as we start to face a tiny fraction of the threats they dealt with daily. I
wouldn't be surprised if the very same people who flaunt moral superiority
over places like Singapore end up being the ones who take us in the exact same
direction.

------
bigpumpkin
Given Facebook policy, they'll probably underweight the post in their
algorithm but not take any step to remove it or put a "fake news" disclaimer
on it. If they don't even correct fake news in the US, I doubt they care about
fake news about Singapore.

------
michaelmrose
It's unconscionable to subordinate US companies and Australian citizens to a
feckless foreign power.

If Singapore why not every other nation on earth?

~~~
Barrin92
It's actually perfectly reasonable to subject American companies to the laws
of nations they operate in unless you're suggesting they ought to act in
imperial fashion and ignore the law of sovereign nations.

It goes without saying that the same is, of course, true for foreign companies
in the US.

~~~
mendelmaleh
How do you define 'operating in' for a web service? I would suggest they are
operating on the internet, out of the US, therefore bound only to US law.
Having the service accessible worldwide shouldn't make you subject to
everyone's laws.

~~~
squiggleblaz
I guess it depends on whether they have ads paid for by Singaporean based
companies targetting Singaporean based audiences. If Coca-Cola sells their
wares in Singapore entirely by remote operations based in the United States,
we'd still expect them to abide by Singaporean regulations pertaining to the
sale of beverages in Singapore, taxes etc.

The alternative would seem to be separate national internets. Data might be
imported and exported, but it wouldn't be seamless like today.

You can say you're not subject to a foreign law, but if you want that market,
you aren't really immune.

~~~
mendelmaleh
If Coca-Cola sells remotely, I would imagine that would be through a local
importer, and it would fall on him to follow the local regulation, or through
a local subsidiary, and the same would apply. So yes, Singapore should have to
separate from the internet if it wants to enforce its laws imo.

------
avainlakech
Just as Uber is slowly but surely getting checked by authorities around the
world (London among others), I hope Facebook gets held to account.

------
tus88
> Facebook has previously said it was “concerned with aspects of the new law
> which grant broad powers to the Singapore executive branch to compel us to
> remove content they deem to be false and to push a government notification
> to users”.

How comical is this coming from Facebook that went all out combating "fake
news" but they now they are concerned about arbitrary censorship?

