Publication Type

Blog Post

Version

publishedVersion

Publication Date

11-2019

Abstract

The issue of a legislative response to falsehoods first drew public attention when the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods held its public hearings. This public attention was renewed when the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (“POFMA”), in Bill form, was unveiled. Questions arose among both the public and MPs about whether POFMA would grant the Government power to stifle academic research, journalism, or the expression of opinion, as well as whether it would be difficult for an individual to seek recourse against an allegedly wrongly made Direction.This post focuses not with the substance of these issues (important as they are) but rather with the manner in which the Government responded to them. The Government’s response took the form of statements made by Ministers and other MPs. This raises the question of how the courts ought to respond to, and make use of, such statements, given that they are not law. That, in turn, raises difficult questions relating to the separation of powers, the role of the Legislature, and the nature of law-making itself. This post does not purport to answer these questions, but aims merely to highlight ways in which the Parliamentary debates on POFMA provide food for thought in addressing them.

Keywords

Singapore, fake news, online falsehoods, POFMA, Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, Hansard, Parliament, legislative process, legislation, Parliamentary debates, legislative debates, legislative history, separation of powers

Discipline

Asian Studies | Legislation | Public Law and Legal Theory

Research Areas

Public Interest Law, Community and Social Justice; Public Law

Publisher

Singapore Academy of Law

Additional URL

https://singaporepubliclaw.com/2019/11/27/symposium-on-pofma-parliamentary-debates-about-pofma-hansard-beyond-statutory-interpretation-by-benjamin-joshua-ong

Download

Share

COinS