Law The recommended law that there's a mistake soilleir made clear that the Government is banning abuse, says Shanmugam t

SINGAPORE: The Bill for Maternity Protection and on-line Treatment contains a “clear check tool” to ban the abuse of power by the Singapore government, told the SNP Minister of Law Shanmugam in UN Convention on t a special interview where he was looking to deal with concerns about the issue. the legislation.

READ: Singapore proposes a multi-level law to challenge online texts

Mr Shanmugam said there were checks in a proposed law, because he was dealing with over-arguing arguments and that it would be given for future abuse by governments. T . For example, if there was a comment that something was false and needed clarification, the courts would want to check this.

In answering questions on whether the legislation gave too much power to the Singapore Government, Mr Shanmugam said that such allegations had also been made on previous pieces of legislation.

“We have always said:“ OK enough to work for us, we are replaced and we use these powers honestly. ”And we give Criticism of our judgments and from time to time, people judge us at the elections and look at the results of our actions. Adding, the minister, who is working with this issue, said, 'he's working,' said the minister.

“So the way in which a clear government has come to work,” he said.

The following is an edited transcript of Mr Shanmugam's interview with CNA Digital Editor Jaime Ho.

NSR: It is very clear that most people understand that all governments need to tackle online errors, particularly online contentious branches. The question is clear to you. Firstly, why did you choose the ministers as the first decision for a range of things about what deception is and then decide on an appropriate action?

Minister of Simon: When there is a disadvantage that affects the public interest, it can spread quickly,.

I can give you real events. In Myanmar, two Muslim men accused a Buddhist woman within 24 hours. Within that time, people get death, many people falling apart on the streets, damaged buildings, many public disorder.

If you turn to the financial markets, a real example of a truth has been the death of a man from a bitcoin company; it's sent out one thing by someone, I think, trying out a profit. Within four to five hours, billions of dollars were removed. Many innocent owners lose money.

Likewise in Indonesia, a false allegation that a Chinese woman had criticized him and said evil things about mosques. Within 24 to 36 hours, buildings were destroyed, 12 Buddhist temples were destroyed, many public disorder, real fear for people's lives. This is a real impact on the world.

It doesn't happen just in Asia; Germany too, and in many parts of Europe. Miracles spread like a wild fire, spreading quickly. Governments must deal with the new impacts. You must therefore move quickly.

Therefore, it is recommended that ministers will have power. Is it false? And if it is wrong, you move immediately to report: Explain. This is not true. But we only talk about truth, not ideas, no, not a party, and not comments. Straight up – has an attack been made? Was this say or not told of a curse by this person. Dealing with truthful complaints that affect the public. Ministers are calling that and you express them, along with the original article, except that the original article must be taken down in some cases.

READ: How will the new law stop deliberate errors from spreading? Frequently asked questions

And if the person needs to be illuminating or accepting unhappy, they will be appealing to the court.

NSRHow do you defend the, or at least, defend the different ministers with different ways and thresholds to decide what needs to be done about it and, perhaps, the different types? action?

Minister: I give you an example from Singapore. I think some people will have remembered a false image – a PBgol HDB roof collapsed.

Do you know how many young families live there? People will be worried. (That is why SCDF, the police and other assets, have not gone away. If we have the power to declare immediately that this is false, and ask the person and platforms (online) to send a warning to everyone: “Those of you who read t note this article, noted that the government has clarified that this is there. It wouldn't be falling apart. ”Wouldn't it be better?

If there are complaints as follows: “If you take this vaccine, your child will be self-sufficient or that he is going to be given to it”, you want to The Ministry of Health is able to elucidate and progress platforms that are inverted. So this is about it.

Different ministry will have experience in different fields, and we talk about the truth, the clear truths.

That goes through a Competent Authority that will serve the know. And we have often said what is required, so that technology platforms offer clarity and push it out to the recipients (feeling at all).

For most people, the project is completely unaffected. They'll just get the adverts.

Jaime interview and K Shan

The editor-General of the CNA Digital Jaime Ho is being interviewed by the Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam. (Image: Hanidah Amin)

NSRYou named the Competent Authority. Since you raised the issue of HDB (falsehood) block, does (a) the process between authorities and the minister before there is a decision? You might need to do it soon. You might need to do it quickly, but is that balance there too?

Minister: Truth is not impossible – there is something real or not. But obviously the Competent Authority could give the minister a view of what needs to be done, a lasting effect. But then the decision must be made by the minister.

NSR: Another issue that has captured imagination is the question of salvation. There is a condition in the legislation that the minister can exempt any individual or class from any provision of this Act. Who does the law remember here? Obviously, when people see freedom, especially for such a bad thing, they say: “What is going on?”

Minister: Most people don't understand that this is common in many laws.

In addition, I can tell you, 15, 20 pieces of legislation, there must be more. Let me give you a few examples: Acting as a Condominium Scheme Active Housing, or Traditional Chinese Medicines Act, Active Mobility Act, Casino Control Act, Telecoms Act, Postal Services Act, Remote Gaming Act, Smoking (Prevention) in Special Areas Act, Fireworks Act Act – a similar provision is made to the same type of legislation.

And the reason is simple. Suppose there is a demand for a technology platform to carry clarification or push out clarification and it is not physically possible to do some of it. The minister then has to consider whether it is true, if it is not possible. And if he did, he might want to consider an exemption. That's what.

NSR: The good thing is that you have constructed those examples which have been used in different legislation as people have come in to trust (not be freed) on the ground. used in this activity. The question, then, shows some suspicion that it might be used by the proposed law. If there is a lack of comfort, it is clearly helpful.

Minister: You know, any government that infringes any powers will have any impact.

In terms of making this offer available, the legislation is no different from other laws.

NSR: Another issue is about this special part which deals with the minister's action before a person can appeal to, or take the case to the courts, that he must send to the minister. First, an initial appeal must be reviewed by the minister himself. To the …

Minister: Yes, that is up to normal.

NSR: But can you explain that, and is there any rule in prescribing at least degree and efficiency?

Minister: All that will be done. It is simply not normal for these things to be included in the primary legislation. I will certainly be addressing it in our second reading in the Parliament and issuing it in sub-group legislation. The whole approach will be to make it quick, efficient, fast and as cheap as possible.

NSR: During the Select Committee process from the previous year, there were some suggestions that an independent body, possibly even accountable to the Parliament, should carry out an information audit. Can you explain why this was not achieved?

Minister: We thought it was very careful. Many reasons as I said earlier.

READ: A news law that does not hide is recommended for Singapore, despite criticism, says PM Lee.

(That's one of them) you have to move quickly, sometimes it is within a few minutes, sometimes within just a few hours. And the best people are the decisions that people need to deal with the situation. That's usually the government, in action (branch).

Secondly, the Government – ministers, the government – is accountable to the Parliament for questions to answer in the Parliament. And also responsible for the courts, where a person notified to clarify something, and is not happy, does not want to enforce their clarification, he may really believe in freedom of speech. But he does not want to support the other side. He can go to court and then the courts decided whether the minister was right or wrong in saying there was nothing real.

We are dealing with something very basic: Is there something really (or is) true. Is this board a white color or is it black? It is true. We do not deal with comments here. Comments, people can be. We are dealing with truth.

The third bullet point is that the government is accountable to the electorate. So it stands or falls as a result of its reviews.

NSR: One such thing, it seems, is an appealing thing about independent (group), however, it can be independent…

Minister: Who will appoint the body.

NSR: One thing is named for the organization. Also, it reduces the politics of the final decision too. Talking honestly, if a minister decides that decision, there will always be some political and political awareness. The advantage of finding out about the survey group is that it is at least more independent.

Minister: I think the answer comes back to some very specific examples.

Let's take a look at the example: Punggol: The roof of block HDB has fallen, is political about? The roof has not fallen or fallen. The example of Myanmar: Secondly the two Muslim men chased a Buddhist woman or not. That's true.

Terrace Waterfront Terrace Hoax Terrace

The 2016 false photograph of the “roof top”.

I don't think we need to go to politics. And the government needs to influence the outcomes that people are responsible for. If there are disputes, if there are big divisions or there is a major public inconvenience, then people think that a fire has broken out or a building has collapsed, then the Government is concerned. deal with it.

He is best with the Government. What we talk about is clarification, sometimes accepting it. And I don't see why this needs to be done politically. This is an act of Government power, just like using many of the other Government powers. Powers to arrest, have powers of detention, powers of inspection, powers of running the economy, spending billions of dollars… (and) apply the truth.

NSR: Since you took the example of a Pungonic event, honestly, the media also feel that this is also our role. That's just as the media, and some of us now, can go out to make sure that … t

MinisterSo there's nothing wrong. But is there anything wrong with the Government coming in with an additional explanation? It helps. There is no reason why this should be…

NSRWe asked for that clarification, and it is then the question whether we might not need the legislation (tools) to… t

Minister: I have asked each session I have attended, with journalists and others, and there are people who do these things day to day, for everyday life. I asked them to give me one example of a truth which means that this situation might not have to be rectified, and I said I would change the legislation.

No one is identified. Each of the examples I give from all over the world and in Singapore, they say: “Oh but that… We agree that power must be used.”

That is the point, the power must be used.

NSR: Another question I am thinking is that it needs a little deal on the courts' duty. We were talking about that earlier. As you said from April 1, the final judge will be the court… t

Minister: That is what the Bill provides.

NSR: And you have also said in the past days that you have to and must give timetables and even costs to keep the process as effective as possible. So would you acknowledge that there were some reasonable concerns from people when they saw that the appeal process for going to courts is expensive, will it take a long time?

Minister: I can understand people's concerns. But as for our thinking, that was always what we thought.

READ: The appeal process should be fast & simple; and 'relatively cheap'; – Shanghai on judging law online

It is not widely understood, but in addition to this Bill, there is another Bill to amend a Protection from Disorder (POHA) Act. It gives people wide-ranging powers. Many people do not understand (but) that people harass, people get their lies about them. And they now have powers to go to court, to apply, to deceive him for rectification or to rectify it.

Why are their own reputation destroyed? So people are now to be empowered under the Protection of Disorder Act. And I said a few months ago, that it was my desire to be as easy as possible, to simplify the process, to make it effective, to speed up, quickly and quickly. In fact, they have set up special courts that will deal with it.

NSR: Will the second reading of the Bill clarify this?

Minister: Wait, so I had said about POHA. And you don't set these things in the legislation. It is my direct wish, no matter what I said a few months ago, that POHA – and POHA and CEOs will be introduced (for consideration) at the same time – this kind of process and ordering order will be in place for Child Protection. from. Online Tests and Treatment Act.

So it's not something we thought about. I understand people who are worried, but we have already been careful about that in our thinking. And I'll make it clear in second reading.

NSRAnother issue that I think needs to be clarified, within the legislation that you have placed on the table, is that the judges can work on what they can, regardless of what they are doing. the power of the hydro-electric authority was to close two areas. One is whether it is true or false, and also whether it is technical or not. Some have said why the judges should not be able to make a decision on whether to take a unfair disadvantage or may need adjustment….

Minister: They can make a decision, it follows a set law. Whether it is true or false, it's a simple question and the judges decide. The technical feasibility is also a matter for their decision.

Where it is in the interests of the public interest and remedial treatment, these are based on previous case law based on established pre-determination – cases for the executive agency. The courts get involved in certain situations and they express themselves in the law how they intervene, in the situations where they get involved; this is not damaged by this legislation.

They may have different standards in the way they make interventions, or the standards they apply for intervention. As I have said, this is put in law. This legislation does not change the law.

NSR: If we can take a step back and look at it from a big view. For the ordinary citizen who looks at this legislation, some may understand it a bit more, and some may understand it less, and then hear international criticism, t others. Obviously the main concern they will speak is free – how it will affect their own ability to speak, criticize, make judgments, make an opinion. That's it.

The second point is how it affects their chance of what they see as a free speaker. Does it hinder what they get into general ideas, different viewpoints? There is some concern. Is that something you can answer?

Minister: The first, in the different meetings that I, my colleagues, I have undertaken and the different sounds we brought, brought out to many people, I think, in the Generally, that people understand.

I'd say there's a problem, but that is limited to a smaller group. But that's not reducing their worries but we find out what people are concerned about. So for those who bring us forward, those who have concerns, my message has been very simple and I have said publicly: “A ninth in the nine per cent of people will not worry These measures take up to 99 per cent of the time. ”

What do I mean? Most of us receive messages, we share them, we put them on, people like them, none of these is an issue. And if it turns out to be false, the main technique is to ask the technology platforms to elucidate everyone.

Therefore, for most of us, the day after this Bill comes into law, accepting that the Parliament goes past, life continues as it is. as usual.

It is the people who need to worry about the people who are profit and those who play shinty in births. They sent out (information) that it was wrong and they know that they were going to make it profitable. They're doing it deliberately, they're putting it out, there's a element of intent. They have to be worried.

But as I said, most people don't go to that region. They can overtake lies, but those who created it; they don't know it's false, they're just passing it. Nothing changes for them. They will find, and I'm sure many will be happy to get, know if you want to see the truth, you can go to that place.

NSR: If I close with another bigger and longer-term question: How you legislate, it is clear that some people criticize it for being too widespread and having too much power. T Government.

And some could argue, that although the current government has put in place the law, there is nothing to stop a future government from using provisions. T in the legislation. We have seen examples of this in everywhere; judges are not just judges. Some governments, if I can say that, are very unusual in using missiles … t

Minister: And these governments also have elections at the elections.

NSR: Is it something you think can be looked into in the legislation? In-house audits are designed to prevent such abuse?

Minister: First, there are checks. If there is evidence of falsehood and wants to clarify, the courts check it. T There are therefore clear check (and) checks.

In the second place, you talk about future governments, whether they abuse. The Government is also, as a result of other legislation, accused of having too much power. We have always said: “OK enough to work for us, we have put it in place and we use these powers honestly. ”And we judge us and from time to time people judge us at the elections and they look at the results of our results. The hobbies, explanations, basic line, how it works. So that's a clear government getting work. I cannot guarantee the future of a government.

But there is a real problem – misunderstandings are the new money that many people trade in. People are being badly affected by money, in terms of their finances, for life, and it's wrong for Singapore to keep quiet.

You see legislation in Germany; you will see Australia's legislation in two days; Britain has suggested significant changes, not yet in legislation. And we had a big meeting last year, when we heard a lot of evidence. It is a real problem, everybody accepts that it is a problem and we have to do something about it.

NSR: We hope to hear a little more about the Bill for second reading in Parliament. Thank you for taking the time to us.

A special telecast of the interview with Minister K Shanmugam will be published on CNA on Sunday, 14 April, at 10.30pm. T

Source link