Connect with us

Opinion

Is the withdrawal of access blocking direction of East Asia Forum, an example of how Singapore practices “Rule by Law”?

In the recent reversal involving POFMA and the East Asia Forum, Singapore’s legal approach has raised questions. The differential treatment between local and foreign entities, combined with apparent selective enforcement, raises concerns about the nation’s commitment to the rule of law versus the rule by law.

Published

on

In the recent reversal of both the Correction Direction under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) and the access blocking orders to the East Asia Forum (EAF), Singapore’s approach to law and governance has come under scrutiny.

First, let’s distinguish between two key concepts: the “rule of law” and “rule by law”.

The former represents a society where no individual, regardless of their status or power, is above the law. Laws serve not just as tools but as guiding principles ensuring fairness, transparency, and protection of human rights.

In contrast, the latter describes a situation where those in power manipulate laws to sustain or increase their control.

In the EAF incident involving POFMA, several elements hint that Singapore might tilt towards “rule by law”.

The EAF article was allegedly filled with “false statements”, prompting a Correction Direction that included directives such as placing correction notices atop webpages, a requirement the EAF didn’t meet. EAF was later issued with an access blocking direction for not complying with the Correction Direction’s directives.

However, instead of pursuing the legal penalties outlined in the POFMA legislation, the Singaporean authorities, specifically Ms Indranee Rajah who issued the Correction Direction, appeared to be appeased once the article was withdrawn and the author issued a public apology.

This approach brings forth a myriad of concerns:

Instrument of Control: The rapid deployment of POFMA suggests it might be used as a tool to steer public discourse.

While its utility in combating misinformation, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, is clear, the manner in which the EAF article’s author retracted his work and apologized (notably through state media) echoes tactics seen in nations with stricter media oversight.

Does the withdrawal of the correction direction and associated penalties following a public apology send a veiled message to academics about expected conduct?

Selective Enforcement and Discrepancy: Why was EAF exempted from penalties despite evident non-compliance, when a domestic publication could have faced harsher consequences?

While POFMA allows the Minister (Ms Indranee) to instruct the POFMA office to issue a Part 3 Direction (Correction Direction/Access Blocking Direction), she can also vary or cancel the Part 3 Direction at any time.

However, there appears to be a lack of provisions that permit the Minister to dismiss any offence resulting from non-compliance.

Such non-compliance carries a severe fine penalty associated with the issued direction. Individuals may face fines of up to S$20,000, imprisonment for up to 12 months, or both for non-compliance with a POFMA Correction Direction, while entities could be fined up to S$500,000.

It gives the impression that the Minister and the Attorney General’s Chambers are overlooking the oversight, essentially giving the foreign publication a free pass.

Such inconsistency can erode trust in the legal system and spur allegations of bias or preferential treatment.

Ambiguities in Application: The selective use of POFMA against certain foreign publications, while merely offering public rebuttals against others, breeds uncertainty.

For example, instead of issuing a POFMA correction direction against an article by The Economist, which allegedly questioned the independence of Singapore’s anti-graft agency, the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) — citing its hierarchical reporting structure as it reports directly to the Prime Minister — Singapore’s High Commissioner to the UK, Mr Lim Thuan Kuan, strongly rebutted the allegations via a letter to the Editor which was publicised via the Singapore state media.

In a previous incident, The Online Citizen (TOC) reported claims made by a Taiwanese media outlet alleging that former Temasek CEO, Ho Ching, earned S$100 million annually. A POFMA correction direction was issued against TOC and not the Taiwanese media outlet that made the original claims.

The absence of a clear standard for POFMA’s application only complicates matters.

Potential for Suppression of Discourse: A lingering concern is whether these legal manoeuvres aim to muzzle local discourse.

If global entities can easily retract and apologize to sidestep legal complications arising from blatant violations of legislation, would local organizations receive the same consideration?

It’s almost certain that had a local outlet committed a similar infraction, the police would be at my doorstep, leading to potential imprisonment.

The overarching narrative suggests a legal framework used more to sculpt narratives and control discourse than to uphold justice.

This not only questions principles like transparency and equality but also casts doubts on Singapore’s allegiance to the rule of law.

While the government’s stated goal with POFMA might be to preserve order and safeguard its image, the tactics witnessed here could erode public confidence in its institutions.

For Singapore, a nation that often takes pride in its robust legal and governance frameworks, introspection is essential. It must ensure its laws and their enforcement truly reflect the interests of its citizens, not just its ruling elite.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Opinion

Are Govt policies and big business interests limiting competition in Singapore?

This opinion piece from Foong Swee Fong explores concerns about how restrictions on private driving instructors and rising COE prices may reflect a broader trend of collaboration between large corporations and the government, potentially reducing market competition and impacting Singaporeans.

Published

on

by Foong Swee Fong

The article, “Driving schools fully booked for months; some students paying bots to secure limited lesson slots” by Channel News Asia, encapsulates all that is wrong with Singapore.

The reason why students can’t get slots is because the “police stopped issuing private driving instructor licences in 1987 when the first two driving schools were set up”.

The police cited coordination and safety reasons.

In 1987, there were “thousands of them” but today “the country only has about 300 private driving instructors” as those who retired were not replaced.

With the gradual reduction of private driving instructors, students have little choice but to patronize the two main driving centres.

Thus, their business is booming not because they are providing excellent service at a competitive rate but because their main competitors – private driving instructors – are being reduced with each passing year, eventually to zero.

Singaporeans should be incensed because what the authorities did is anti-competitive and disadvantageous to them, but not surprisingly, this being Singapore, they brushed it aside, accepting it, perhaps, as the price of progress.

It is becoming a recurring trend: Big Business working hand in glove with the government to subvert the free market.

For crying out loud! The police “stopped issuing private driving instructor licenses WHEN the two driving schools were set up!” How blatant must it get before people start waking up?

While ComfortDelGro Driving Centre is part of the publicly listed ComfortDelGro Corporation, which is commonly perceived as government-linked, Bukit Batok Driving Centre is majority-owned by large corporate entities including Honda Motor Co, Kah Motors, and Income Insurance Ltd.

The CNA article then quoted young Singaporeans who say they still want to learn driving despite the skyrocketing COE prices “due to the convenience and option of renting a vehicle” from car-sharing companies.

It then relates the positive experience of a 22-year-old national serviceman, Calvert Choo, with car-sharing companies, about the price of rental and its convenient location near his HDB block, about Tribecar and GetGo, ending by saying that other reasons for learning to drive
include working in the ride-hailing and delivery industry.

I can’t help but sense that Big Business, with the government, is again trying to subvert the market:

In 2012, taxis were exempted from the COE bidding process to prevent them from driving up Category A COE prices. Instead, they pay the Prevailing Quota Premium, which is the average of the previous three months’ Category A prices at the point of purchase, with their COEs sourced from the Open Category. This arrangement acknowledges that taxi companies are using passenger cars for commercial purposes unlike private car owners, and that they can outbid private car owners.

However, recent trends have seen Private Hire Vehicles (PHVs), car-sharing companies, and even driving schools pushing passenger car COE prices higher, echoing the earlier situation with taxi companies. A simple solution would be to extend the taxi model to these groups. Yet, this approach has not been adopted, and authorities have instead proposed unrealistic solutions.

If COE prices remain elevated, average and even above-average-income drivers will be priced out of the market, forcing them to use PHVs and car-sharing vehicles.

Is this another diabolical scheme to force the people to patronize certain businesses, just like student drivers have now to patronize driving schools?

There are numerous worrisome alliances between Big Business and the Government in our country. They are using fewer generic medicines compared to many other countries in the region, which may contribute to higher healthcare costs. Some have raised concerns about the influence of patented medicines within the healthcare system, potentially increasing overall medical expenses.

As a measure of how preposterous the situation has become, the said CNA article, which in fact is propaganda and free advertisement for the respective big businesses, is published by state-owned MediaCorp, thus paid for by the people, to brainwash themselves!

The Big Business-Government cancer has spread deep and wide. By subverting the free market, resources will be mis-allocated, the poor will be poorer, a large chunk of the middle class will become the new poor, and the rich will be richer, thus tearing society apart.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Revitalizing democracy in Southeast Asia: Grassroots efforts, youth engagement, and international support

Simone Galimberti highlights the importance of grassroots activism, youth engagement, and international support to revitalize democracy in Southeast Asia. It emphasizes the role of students, global organizations, and bottom-up democratic approaches in promoting human rights and political freedoms.

Published

on

by Simone Galimberti

The 15th of September is celebrated internationally as the International Day of Democracy.

It is a United Nations-sanctioned day, one of the many recognized by the international body to highlight important issues that affect the planet and humanity.

Considering how the member states are so divided on matters of human rights and democracy, it is almost a miracle that there was an agreement to observe an international day on these issues.

Yet, perhaps commemorating this day is not totally surprising considering that even the most heinous regimes consider themselves, at least on paper, adhering to and respecting democratic norms and principles.

In this regard, the Asia Pacific is a global trailblazer, setting a high bar on trumping and stifling civil and political rights and within the wider region, South East Asia is doing its bits to contribute and preserve this track record.

As highlighted by the ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) in a press release on occasion of International Day of Democracy, “ ASEAN has not shown serious efforts to promote universal values of democracy in its member states such as respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; holding free and fair elections; a pluralistic system of political parties and organizations; separation of powers; independence of the branches of government; freedom of expression and the press; and constitutional subordination of all state institutions to the legally constituted civilian authority”.

The specific theme of this year is the role of Artificial Intelligence to promote or destroy the democratic fabric of our societies.

I am not going to touch on it, not because it is an unimportant issue but because it is essential to talk more about the fundamentals, as underscored by APHR.

I will focus on possible remedies and practical, actionable, concrete initiatives that could really re-energize and re-vitalize democracy and human rights.

First, we need a massive effort at the grassroots level.

The same passion and commitment put into promoting the fight against climate warming and biodiversity degradation should also be shared to promote democracy and human rights.

Indeed, we need an overarching effort to engage the youths of the region in civic actions that can have direct repercussions on improving and enhancing the quality of democracy in the South East Asia.

It is not going to be easy as both students and their higher learning institutions in which they study, are conveniently brushing aside any discussion on human rights and democracy.

Second, the role of the international community.

International philanthropies organizations, human rights organizations working globally have a special responsibility to try to generate interest among the great numbers of detached, insulated and disinterested students of the region.

As we know, it is not that there is apathy and cynicism among them throughout the region. There are best practices, and we can look at the vigour put by students in Thailand to assert their rights and defend democracy.

Those members of the international community valuing democracy and, at least in words, profess steadfast, unflinching support for human rights, no matter risking of being accused of hypocrisy when they sign business deals with authoritarian and semi-democratic regimes of South East Asia, must play a big role.

While it is difficult, often impractical and inconvenient to raise issues of democracy and human rights in the official nations ‘ interactions, we should invest huge sums to support discussions and debate on these issues with local youths.

Ambassadors from these nations should be much more proactive and prioritize public engagements with youths and students.

While in diplomacy, pragmatism and real politick reign supreme, there is nothing that prevents the representatives of nations caring about democracy and human rights from stepping up their efforts.

Funding, even small grants, should be made available to support micro initiatives around human rights and democracy, offering students and young people channels to discuss topics that too often are ignored and neglected.

When their high-ranking senior officials do visit the capitals of South East Asia, they should always prioritize meeting with students and youths.

Such dialogues, even though they are just rich in symbolism and nothing else, would offer a way to embolden new generations to think differently.

Let’s not forget that the United Nations has been recently trying to highlight the importance of human rights to achieve sustainable development.

It means, for example, that climate change cannot be fought without giving people a voice and respecting their rights.

The Secretary General of the United Nations has been pushing to underscore the essentials of human rights through his Call to Action for Human Rights.

That’s why the regional office in Bangkok, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, plays such a vital role.

It should be equipped with more resources to scale its work in the region, also considering the active role played by the High Commissioner, Volker Türk through his initiative, Human Rights: A Path for Solutions, to commemorate, last year, the 75th anniversary of the adaption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

But then we need to tackle what it is, according to APHR, the defining issue, “integrating the institutionalization of democracy norms and promotion into the drafting of the ASEAN Vision 2045, which is set to be adopted in 2025 as the realization of the ASEAN Charter’s promises to strengthen democracy in the region”.

On this case, more awareness and knowledge on the part of the youths on democracy and human rights should lead to an overall discussion on the future of ASEAN.

Like all regional cooperation projects, ASEAN is, by definition, an elite initiative that is far from the day to day lives of the people.

This year and the next one are going to be fundamental for the future of the bloc.

Citizens, with the help of media outlets and with the involvement of social influencers who should espouse the cause, must take an informed interest on the ongoing negotiations on the future of ASEAN.

Ideally schools and universities should debate the way forward for this institution that is so remote and aloof that no one really cares about.

Lastly, we should remind ourselves that the status of democracy is ailing everywhere and not only in the South East Asia.

While we should enable the new generations to get engaged and involved, it is indispensable to find ways to improve the current existing model based on representations and elections.

It is high time that bottom up, deliberative forms of democracy are taken into consideration and given the due importance.

There are many ways to do so by putting the people and especially the youths at the center not only of the conversation but also at the center of the decision making.

While localized, endogenous ways must be found to strengthen democracy in the South East Asia, it is essential to reflect on how to do it.

It is indispensable to make democracy and human rights stronger by rethinking the way democracy works, making it more inclusive and participatory.

The author writes about development, regional integration and democracy and human rights in the Asia Pacific

Continue Reading

Trending