Academics do accept the need for the Government to rebut robustly research that it does not agree with, whether from academics or activists, but there is a trend of ministries using language in their rebuttals that implies falsehoods, said Nominated MP Walter Theseira.
An economist at the Singapore University of Social Sciences, Dr Theseira said a closer look at details of a case would show it to be merely a dispute about the facts or conclusion.
He said he hoped Education Minister Ong Ye Kung had “some views on maybe asking his colleagues or ministries to tighten up a bit in their language (so) that people don’t inadvertently think things are false when they are actually not”. He was speaking during the debate on the proposed yesterday.
In response, Mr Ong said one value of the debate on the proposed law in Parliament was that “we are now a lot more careful what is a disagreement, what is a falsehood”.
“And I think this law crystallised it and we should be more disciplined in future,” he added.
Earlier, Mr Ong said the Bill as long as it was not based on false data. But scholars must be prepared that government agencies will put out arguments to convince the public if they do not agree with the research, he added.
In all, four MPs, including three academics, responded to Mr Ong.
Non-Constituency MP Daniel Goh raised a case in 2003 when two Nanyang Technological University dons said that for the previous five years, three out of four new jobs in Singapore were taken up by foreigners. Then-Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen said their research was “way off the mark” and it was irresponsible to put such wrong findings out – a rebuke Dr Goh said would be equivalent to a correction under the new laws.
Mr Ong did not agree that Dr Ng’s disagreement with the dons would be considered a correction order under the proposed Pofma: “That is political discourse. It cannot be that just because it’s a research piece we all have to shut up.”
Dr Goh, a sociologist from the National University of Singapore, also asked if other ministers would first consult the Education Minister, who oversees academic research, for verification first.
Mr Ong replied: “I think it should be, based on how the law is written today; but based on the Workers’ Party’s suggestion, I’m afraid it will go to the courts.” He was referring to the opposition party’s stand that the courts, not the ministers, should be the initial decision-maker on what are falsehoods.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC) asked the minister to clarify if the laws would apply to researchers whose conclusion is based on incomplete data, as was the case in 2003. Mr Ong said the data, while incomplete, was not fabricated or falsified. As for the NTU dons’ conclusion, that was their opinion, he said.
“So long as researchers abide by research discipline, I do not see how they can be caught by Pofma unless they fabricate the data,” he added.
Rachel Au-Yong