A NEW law banning the publication of false digital depictions of candidates during election periods will uphold the truthfulness of their representation and the integrity of Singapore’s elections.
Digital Development and Information Minister Josephine Teo said this in Parliament during the debate on the Elections (Integrity of Online Advertising) (Amendment) – or Eliona – Bill, which was passed on Tuesday (Oct 15).
The law amends Singapore’s election legislation, and will address “the most harmful types” of elections-related content, which misleads or deceives through a “realistic enough” false representation of a candidate’s speech or actions, said Teo.
This comes ahead of the country’s impending general election, which must be held by November 2025.
For content to be banned, four legal limbs must be satisfied: being or including online election advertising; being digitally manipulated; depicting an untrue representation; and being realistic enough for some members of the public to believe.
This includes content altered using artificial intelligence, and “more traditional” methods such as Photoshop, dubbing and splicing.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
Other jurisdictions such as South Korea and Brazil have passed similar legislation, Teo noted, highlighting that deepfake content has proliferated as it has become very easy and cheap to produce.
She cited a recent study by research agency Verian, which showed that more than six in 10 Singaporeans are worried about the potential impact of deepfakes in the next election.
Conditions and caveats
The prohibition will not apply to unrealistic characters and cartoons; cosmetic alterations such as beauty filters and colour adjustments; entertainment content such as memes and satire; and campaign posters that are unrealistic.
But labelling manipulated content as such will not automatically exempt it from prohibition, as a label may not be noticed by everyone and there are ways to remove it before recirculation, Teo noted.
Whether the advertising favours any candidate does not matter. Publication, in the case of this legislation, includes boosting, sharing and reposting existing content – but the law will provide for a defence for those who inadvertently commit the offence.
While sharing between individuals or within closed groups does not fall under the law, prohibited content communicated in large chats on platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram – which involve many strangers and are open to the public – does. In these instances, the government will assess if action should be taken.
The prohibition does not apply to news published by authorised news agencies, to facilitate fair reporting.
On the condition of realism, Teo said that this would be objectively assessed, with no one-size-fits-all set of criteria. But generally, the match to candidates’ features and mannerisms, as well as the use of actual persons, events and places could be considered.
She recognised that individual experiences, beliefs and cognitive biases mean that viewers perceive the same content through different lenses. “In this regard, the law will apply so long as there are some members of the public who would reasonably believe that the candidate did say or do what was depicted,” she said.
Enforcement and effects
The new law empowers the returning officer to issue corrective directions for the prohibited content, to take it down or disable access to it.
The safeguards proposed will apply during the election period – from the issuance of the Writ of Election to the close of the polls on Polling Day. They will be applicable to prospective candidates who pay the election deposit and consent for their names to be made public by the Elections Department.
Several Members of Parliament (MPs) raised questions about the duration and coverage of the ban.
“If we are to effectively uphold the integrity of elections, the protections under the Bill must be available when election activities are the most intense and mischief makers most active,” said Teo. “This is usually the election period.”
While she agreed with People’s Action Party MP Yip Hon Weng and Workers’ Party MP He Ting Ru’s concerns that deceptive information can sway public opinion even before the election period, the minister added: “Practically speaking, however, even if we wanted Eliona to take effect ‘X’ days before an election, we cannot do so until the Writ is issued, and Polling Day revealed.”
This is why a Code of Practice is being formulated, to require specified social media services to implement safeguards beyond the election period. The government intends to finalise the Code for issuance in 2025.
As for why the law does not cover misrepresentations of persons other than candidates, such as celebrity endorsers, Teo responded that this requires consideration of the definition of influence, and the changing dynamics of influence as a political contest develops.
The minister said that in reviewing content flagged, the government will prioritise candidates’ reports to the returning officer, and will rely on their declarations on whether the content is false.
This is as they are best placed to quickly identify if a representation is truthful and accurate, she said, noting that the government is unlikely to have all the evidence of candidates’ speech or actions.
But to deter abuse of the law – for example, candidates requesting to take down unfavourable but factual content – knowingly making a false or misleading declaration will be made an illegal practice and penalised accordingly.
An independent technical assessment will also be conducted with commercial detection tools, and those developed in-house and in partnership with researchers.
Other candidates and the public can also report content for review. In such cases, the candidate depicted will be asked for a declaration, but the Returning Officer may proceed without it if denied, given that he has objective information that the content is in breach.
A dedicated team will be stationed to monitor and act swiftly on banned content during the election period.
The Elections Department will provide updates on how it will notify the public about corrective directions “in due course”. Those who believe a corrective direction is wrongful can make appeals.
If a provider of social media services does not comply with a corrective direction, it can be fined up to S$1 million, in line with similar legislation. All others, including individuals, are subject to a fine not exceeding S$1,000, a jail term not exceeding 12 months, or both.