Police say LHY and LSF are free to return, but risk of arrest and passport seizure remains

Channel News Asia’s (CNA) recent article: “Opinions remain divided on POFMA five years later, but has it helped tackle fake news?” on the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) is presented as a balanced reflection on the law five years after its entry into force, following a highly controversial parliamentary process.

However, the article raises serious concerns about the lack of objectivity, transparency and the selective representation of public sentiments towards the law.

Given that CNA is owned by the Singapore government through Temasek Holdings, these concerns highlight the limitations of state-funded media in critically evaluating government policies. In Singaporean terms, this article shows how “checking oneself” literally “doesn’t cut it.”

Lack of transparency in claims

The article claims that CNA has contacted “several recipients” of previous POFMA orders to discuss their experiences.

But after cross-checking with numerous POFMA recipients, it appears that only two individuals confirmed they had been contacted.

Crucially, key targets of POFMA orders such as The Online Citizen (TOC), Kenneth Jeyaretnam and the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) – all of whom are frequent recipients of POFMA correction directives – have not been contacted for comment.

This was confirmed by the above and also by Yee Jenn Jong of the Workers’ Party and Leong Mun Wai of the Progress Singapore Party.

This omission distorts the story and leaves out important perspectives from those most affected by POFMA, raising serious doubts about the objectivity of the article as a whole.

Furthermore, the author of the article did not respond when contacted for clarification as to which of the POFMA recipients had been reached.

This lack of transparency further undermines the credibility of CNA’s claim that it attempted to consult with multiple stakeholders. By selectively omitting key voices, the article fails to provide a comprehensive picture of how POFMA has been applied or received.

Selective representation of public sentiment

CNA’s portrayal of public sentiment towards POFMA is also problematic.

The article claims that “a majority” of those interviewed agreed with the need for the law to combat falsehoods.

However, this claim appears to be at odds with the article’s reception on social media – or, more specifically, its absence online.

CNA opted not to post the article on the usual primary social media platforms, opting to post it only on Telegram.

This unusual choice suggests that CNA may have anticipated criticism of the article’s story and attempted to limit public involvement. This does not demonstrate confidence in the claim that the “majority” of interviewees agreed with the law, unless interviewees were confined to a very narrow echo chamber.

Even on Telegram, the response was overwhelmingly negative: 372 users disliked the post, while 70 users expressed approval.

While this is not a representative sample of the entire population, it directly challenges the article’s claim that most people support POFMA.

The negative response to Telegram further undermines the argument that public sentiment is largely in favor of the law, especially when CNA itself avoided posting the article where public scrutiny could be more visible and objectively documented.

TOC also posted a poll on Facebook asking if people supported the law, with the majority saying no. We recognized the limitations of the study and did not attempt to claim to provide a balanced view of the law, but rather an estimate of public perception based on an open, transparent survey.

The hidden costs of challenging POFMA

One of the most misleading aspects of CNA’s reporting is the Ministry of Law’s (MinLaw) claim that the lack of challenges to POFMA orders indicates that recipients knew they were spreading falsehoods.

This interpretation ignores the significant financial, emotional and legal barriers to challenging POFMA orders.

It also ignores the fact that while the majority of POFMA recipients have not formally challenged the orders in court, many of them have published statements disagreeing with the correction directives they were required to implement.

To get an idea of ​​how onerous a formal legal challenge to a POFMA designation is, visit the how-to page to learn how to file a POFMA appeal; simply looking at the fees and potential costs is intimidating enough.

The fees listed also do not include the cost of hiring an attorney to represent the person or entity in court. While you can represent yourself in court, based on TOC’s experience, you will be dealing with three trained legal professionals arguing against you, which would be challenging to say the least.

The reality is that complying with a POFMA order is the path of least resistance for many, especially when the alternative is public embarrassment, legal harassment (if they cannot afford a lawyer) and the financial burden of a lawsuit.

TOC, which has filed the most lawsuits against POFMA with three applications and received the most directions at age 15 – more if you count Gutzy Asia’s directions – has stopped challenging some of the more recent orders, not because it admitted to spreading untruths, but because the legal procedure is too burdensome and expensive.

Because of the way the law is written, in most cases challenging a POFMA order is less about proving the truth or falsity, but rather about the way ministers frame their statements as untrue.

The ‘multiple meanings’ rule considered as the benchmark by which statements are judged under POFMA poses a huge challenge to anyone making a statement as it would imply that every statement must take into account differing interpretations beyond the original intention of the maker of the statement. This legal quagmire prevents even people with legitimate cases from fighting back.

A good example is the case of Terry Xu, in which he challenged a 2023 POFMA order by Minister of Home Affairs and Law K. Shanmugam.

Despite Mr Shanmugam’s statement in Parliament that no costs would be imposed on individuals challenging POFMA orders, the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) sought to obtain legal costs from Xu.

The court ultimately dismissed AGC’s claim and ordered AGC to pay Xu S$2,500 in costs for the failed application.

This particular incident highlights the intimidating legal environment surrounding POFMA challenges, where even promises made in Parliament appear to be ignored by government agencies.

Following the ruling of the Court of Appeal that it must be made prima facie plausible that the alleged untruth is true (in other words, that the burden of proof lies with the person who allegedly made the false statement and not with the minister), TOC has also had to withdraw its appeal against the POFMA correction directive in relation to Ho Ching’s salary after the AGC threatened to seek costs.

It would have been challenging for TOC to dispute the case as the claim came from a Taiwanese media outlet, which TOC only reported on. It is striking that the Taiwanese media outlet itself has not received a POFMA correction directive.

This situation highlights a double standard, where media reporting of the government’s claims is not required to verify their veracity, as the POFMA guidelines do not apply to government statements.

It also illustrates the apparent arbitrariness of the POFMA process, a point that was possibly alluded to in the CNA article but not explored in depth.

A skewed perspective on the application of POFMA

The CNA article also sidesteps the fact that POFMA disproportionately targets opposition figures, activists and independent media outlets.