SOC203 Living Sociology Assignment: Fake News Bill and Singapore

This assignment analyzes Singapore's 'fake news' bill through a sociological lens. Part A examines the bill's implications, drawing on sociological theories such as the conflict perspective, social construction of reality, and theories of free speech. It discusses how the bill might create social inequality, control media, and potentially censor information, thereby affecting public understanding and freedom of expression. Part B outlines a research methodology involving interviews with Singaporean youth to gather qualitative and quantitative data on their perceptions of the bill. The assignment highlights the importance of random sampling to ensure representative views and a mixed-methods approach to provide a comprehensive understanding of the youth's perspectives. The analysis references relevant academic sources to support its arguments, providing a well-rounded perspective on the social and political ramifications of the bill.

Running head: LIVING SOCIOLOGY
Living Sociology
-Fake News Bill of Singapore Government
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1LIVING SOCIOLOGY
Table of Contents
Part A:........................................................................................................................................2
Part B:.........................................................................................................................................4
References:.................................................................................................................................5

2LIVING SOCIOLOGY
Part A:
On May 8th, 2019 the Parliament of Singapore passed a comprehensive legislation that is
aimed to combat fake news and shape the Singapore Society by protecting it from the adverse
and misleading effects of false information. The bill was supported by 72 members of the
parliament with only 9 not showing support to the bill and 3 abstaining from the vote (Lee &
Lee, 2019).
The bill came through after several debates and oppositions from the opposition party, who
feared that the bill can be misused by the government to quash critics of the government
(Fernandez, 2019). According to the bill, the arbiters of the falsehood of a news are the
ministers of the parliament instead of the courts, which many feel opens the scope for the
ministers abusing the bill to mislead the people.
The adverse effects of false information can be understood through the ‘Conflict Perspective’
theory of sociology that implies the creation of inequality through a social process that
intends to disrupt the society. The conflict can be caused from a differential access of
information on the media thereby creating a digital divide and thereby causing conflict
among people (Tandoc et al., 2018). This conflict creates social tensions and therefore can be
disadvantageous to the society. The impact of control media and technology acts as a
gatekeeper that filters information shared on a platform, accepting or rejecting the data based
on certain grounds, which in case of this bill is the notion of ‘falsehood’ of the information
(Cacciatore et al., 2016). This provides an enormous power to the institution who serves to
label and categorize information as truth or false, and therefore control what information is
accessible to the public (Reese & Shoemaker, 2016). The fear of the opposing against the bill,
pointing out that the bill gives a big power to the government to control the media, based on
their perspectives, which can often be biased and thus misleading to the people.

3LIVING SOCIOLOGY
According to the Social Construction of Reality, the shared symbols and meanings that exists
in the society helps to construct an understanding of reality foe the people. Misleading
information or false information can in turn lead to inaccurate construct or understanding of
reality by people, and therefore would affect how people react to the reality and create
confusion of chaos in the society, which can be curbed by ensuring that the information
available to the public is correct and true (Strossen, 2018). This factor has been the crux of
the debate and have supported the bill to be passed in Singapore.
The fear expressed by the critiques of the ‘anti fake news’ bill can be related to the theories of
‘Free Speech’ that implies the freedom of individuals to freely share and express their
opinions, regardless of its factuality or falsehood (Ingram, 2019). This forms a basic part of
the freedom of expression and protects individuals from prosecution for expressing
themselves or their opinions freely in the public. The bill can be seen to directly curb this
freedom, as the government has the power to decide whether an information is fake and thus
prevent individuals from expressing themselves honestly (Reese & Shoemaker, 2016). This
can result in the government having a strong control over what information is published by
the media, and can lead to biased opinions being propagated due the influences of the
governing bodies. Information that can be harmful for the ruling party for example can be
easily labelled as fake, regardless of its actual validity and thus be misinformative for the
public.
The concept of censorship of information has been an age old one, where an approach of
‘paternalistic governance’ is used to protect and guide the people and safeguarding them from
information that can harm them or cause unrest in the society (Fernandez, 2019). Provocative
or racial comments on the media can often cause social conflicts and can lead to the loss of
properties or even lives. The sensitive nature of certain topics in addition predisposes people
towards an overreaction when their sentiments are hurt or disrespected. This can have fatal

4LIVING SOCIOLOGY
outcomes if not curbed at the right time. Self-censorship can help people to show restraint
from sharing incorrect or fake news and thereby avoid aggravating people without a cause. It
can be seen how the passing of the ‘fake news’ bill by the Singapore Government aims to
censor such kinds of information to maintain the cohesiveness of its society (Ingram, 2019).
Part B:
In order to study and understand the perspectives of the young people of Singapore to this
bill, it is important to interview the youth on what they thing about the bill and whether they
feel that the bill can be good or bad for the society. The data collection methodology that can
be used for the study can include primary data collection of qualitative and quantitative data
from the interviews. This would help to understand both the views and perspectives of the
respondents about the bill and also develop a quantitative understanding of how many of the
respondents are in support and how many are against the bill (Cacciatore et al., 2016). The
qualitative data can be used to justify the results of the quantitative data. The sample
population selected for the interview can be determined using random sampling that will
prevent biases in sample selection thereby ensuring that the response of the sample
respondents represents the views and mindsets of the overall population and thus gain a
holistic understanding of what the youth of Singapore thinks about the new bill (Lee & Lee,
2019). Thus a mixed data (primary and secondary), collected from the interviews can help to
develop a proper understanding of the mindset of the youth of Singapore, thereby making this
approach more appropriate for the given population.

5LIVING SOCIOLOGY
References:
Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Iyengar, S. (2016). The end of framing as we know
it… and the future of media effects. Mass Communication and Society, 19(1), 7-23.
Fernandez, J. M. (2019). Malaysia’s Anti-Fake News Act: A cog in an arsenal of anti-free
speech laws and a bold promise of reforms. Pacific Journalism Review: Te Koakoa, 25(1&2),
173-192.
Ingram, P. G. (2019). Censorship and free speech: some philosophical bearings. Routledge.
Lee, H., & Lee, T. (2019). From contempt of court to fake news: public legitimisation and
governance in mediated Singapore. Media International Australia, 1329878X19853074.
Reese, S. D., & Shoemaker, P. J. (2016). A media sociology for the networked public sphere:
The hierarchy of influences model. Mass Communication and Society, 19(4), 389-410.
Strossen, N. (2018). Hate: Why we should resist it with free speech, not censorship. Oxford
University Press.
Tandoc Jr, E. C., Lim, Z. W., & Ling, R. (2018). Defining “fake news” A typology of
scholarly definitions. Digital journalism, 6(2), 137-153.