Opinion
Government support and media bias: The double standards in Singapore’s media landscape
The PAP government’s S$900 million support for SPH Media Trust contrasts with its use of POFMA to financially cripple independent outlets like TOC and Gutzy Asia. Critics argue that government funding could bias SMT towards the PAP, while independent media faces suppression under the guise of combating foreign influence and online falsehoods.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2023/01/26203939/SMT-SPH.png)
Government support for SPH Media Trust (SMT) has been justified on the grounds that SPH is an important national institution with wide reach among Singapore’s reading public and that it is necessary to keep it functioning amidst the global decline in the news industry. However, the PAP government’s contrasting approaches to SMT and independent media outlets like The Online Citizen (TOC) and Gutzy Asia reveal a troubling pattern of selective support and repression.
While SMT enjoys a S$900 million government grant over five years, independent media faces increasingly stringent regulations that threaten their very survival. The discrepancy underscores the PAP government’s intent to curtail critical voices while financially bolstering media entities that align with its interests. This selective approach raises serious concerns about media freedom and the government’s commitment to a diverse and independent press.
In July 2023, TOC’s website and Facebook page were hit with a Declaration of Online Location (DOL) under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), making it illegal for the site and page to financially benefit from their operations. This marked a significant escalation in the government’s efforts to stifle independent media. The DOL effectively cut off TOC’s ability to secure funding, which is crucial for its operations, especially in an environment where resources are already limited. This tactic of financial strangulation follows a pattern of using legal measures, such as POFMA, to undermine independent media.
More recently, in June 2024, Gutzy Asia, also under the same Taiwanese parent company as TOC, faced a similar fate. The publication was also issued a POFMA DOL, with particularly alarming justifications. The DOL was based on POFMA directions issued for reports on current affairs, and more absurdly, for simply having a link to a POFMAed post by Reform Party chief Kenneth Jeyaretnam. The arbitrary nature of these actions underscores the PAP government’s determination to control the narrative and suppress any media that might offer a dissenting perspective.
Now, imagine if The Straits Times, Singapore’s largest and most influential newspaper, were subjected to the same treatment as TOC. Could its editors and reporters survive the financial fallout if a DOL were issued against the publication, making it illegal to benefit financially from its operations?
The very notion seems far-fetched given that SMT, which publishes The Straits Times, is supported with a grant of up to S$900 million from the government. This grant not only ensures the paper’s financial stability but also implies a level of protection that independent media like TOC and Gutzy Asia do not enjoy.
The announcement in 2022 that the government will fund the SPH Media Trust directly via government funding has effectively put the last nail in the coffin of ‘government mouthpiece’ allegations. Many question why they should pay for SPH publications’ subscriptions when they are perceived as little more than government propaganda pieces.
Critics have pointed out that while the government justifies its actions against independent media by claiming they might be subject to foreign intervention due to monetary support, the same logic is not extended to SMT.
If foreign funding can bias media outlets, wouldn’t a publication’s reliance on a S$900 million government grant similarly influence its editorial stance? Given the PAP government’s heavy financial support for SMT, it is reasonable to question whether SPH Media Trust can truly remain impartial, or if it is inevitably biased towards the government that sustains its operations.
The government’s continued support of SMT, particularly in light of the misrepresentation of its circulation figures revealed in 2023, suggests that there is little chance SPH Media would ever face a POFMA direction or a DOL.
At most, the organization might receive a warning—a slap on the wrist compared to the draconian measures imposed on independent outlets. The PAP government’s willingness to financially support SMT, despite these misrepresentations, contrasts sharply with its aggressive legal actions against even minor transgressions by independent media, revealing a clear intent to maintain control over the media landscape.
The PAP’s dual approach—lavishing public funds on state-aligned media while using legal tools to cripple independent outlets—highlights a strategy designed to suppress dissent and protect the government’s narrative. The financial support for SMT, juxtaposed with the restrictions placed on independent media, paints a picture of a government more interested in controlling its political narrative than in fostering a healthy, diverse media environment.
As long as the PAP government continues to wield laws like POFMA selectively, there is little hope for the development of a truly free and independent press. The generous funding of SMT, coupled with the financial strangulation of critical voices, suggests that the government is not merely supporting trusted journalism—it is shaping a media landscape where only government-aligned narratives can thrive.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2023/03/26202010/TOC_newlogo_small.webp)
Opinion
A tragic reminder: The urgent need for defamation law reform in Singapore
Opinion: The tragic suicide of Geno Ong highlights the emotional and financial toll of defamation lawsuits in Singapore, where plaintiffs often aren’t required to prove reputational damage. Her case, alongside others, calls for urgent reform to ensure fairer balance between protecting reputation and free speech.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2024/09/09175212/supreme-court-singapore.png)
The recent suicide of Geno Ong has once again cast a spotlight on the nature of defamation laws in Singapore and the pressures they exert on those caught in legal battles.
Ong’s tragic note, accusing businessman Raymond Ng of financially and emotionally breaking her through lawsuits, reflects the personal toll of defamation cases in a jurisdiction where proving damage to reputation is not always required.
This backdrop invites a broader reflection on how defamation laws in Singapore are structured, particularly when compared to other legal systems like the UK’s.
In the UK, as seen in the recent case of British billionaire Sir James Dyson, courts demand that plaintiffs demonstrate significant reputational harm.
Dyson lost his defamation case against the Daily Mirror because he could not prove any financial loss stemming from the publication. This standard, established under the UK’s Defamation Act 2013, creates a higher threshold for plaintiffs, emphasizing the need to show serious damage.
In contrast, Singapore’s defamation laws, as demonstrated in the recent legal victory of Singaporean Ministers K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan against Lee Hsien Yang (LHY), do not require proof of reputational damage.
The Ministers successfully argued that LHY’s Facebook post insinuated corrupt practices, even though LHY maintained that his post did not imply personal benefit or corruption. The Singapore court sided with the Ministers, and LHY did not pursue a counterclaim.
Comparing Legal Standards: Singapore vs. the UK
This divergence between the UK and Singapore is stark. While Sir James Dyson’s lawsuit was dismissed due to a lack of evidence of financial loss, the Singaporean Ministers’ lawsuit prevailed based on the interpretation of a Facebook post, with no need to prove actual harm.
In Singapore, it is often the defendant’s responsibility to disprove the defamation, a legal structure that may make it easier for powerful individuals to pursue and win defamation suits.
For critics, this represents a significant flaw in Singapore’s defamation laws, as the threshold for sustaining defamation suits is relatively low. Plaintiffs in Singapore are not required to show reputational damage or financial loss, leading to concerns that defamation laws may be used by the wealthy and powerful to silence critics, rather than to address legitimate harm.
The Impact on Free Speech and Public Discourse
These cases raise important questions about the balance between protecting individuals from defamation and safeguarding freedom of speech.
In the case of LHY, one might question what reputational harm the Ministers could have suffered when they remained in power and continued to be elected by the public.
Should defamation lawsuits be used when public figures face criticism in a democratic society? These legal actions, especially when successful, may have a chilling effect on free speech, discouraging citizens from voicing concerns about public figures for fear of legal retaliation.
Similarly, in the case of Geno Ong, Raymond Ng’s defamation lawsuits against her raise significant questions about the actual damage to his reputation.
Ong’s accusations, while serious, appeared to target a niche social media audience and did not seem to widely impact Ng’s standing or business operations.
Given his continued involvement in business, it becomes difficult to argue that Ng’s reputation suffered substantial harm from Ong’s posts. This situation echoes broader concerns about Singapore’s defamation laws, where plaintiffs are not required to show clear evidence of reputational damage to succeed in their claims.
Moreover, the Ministers chose to serve LHY legal papers in the UK, a jurisdiction with a higher threshold for defamation claims, through social messaging rather than physical service.
This decision, and the Ministers’ choice to pursue the case in Singapore rather than the UK, where the case might have been dismissed, raises concerns about fairness. Critics suggest that Singapore’s legal framework, influenced by long-standing laws and political structures, favours those in positions of power.
The Future of Defamation Laws in Singapore
The contrast between the Dyson case in the UK and the Ministers’ case in Singapore demonstrates how defamation laws in different jurisdictions can lead to significantly different outcomes.
In the UK, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove serious harm, offering greater protection to free speech. In Singapore, the burden often shifts to the defendant, creating a system where plaintiffs in positions of power can more easily sue for defamation without showing significant damage.
Without legislative reforms, defamation laws in Singapore may continue to be seen as tools that can be used by those in power to suppress criticism, stifling public discourse.
Geno Ong’s case, while rooted in personal tragedy, highlights the emotional and financial toll that defamation suits can have on ordinary individuals.
Ong’s story, alongside high-profile cases like those involving the Ministers and LHY, underscores the need for a deeper conversation about the purpose and fairness of defamation laws in Singapore.
Ultimately, Singapore must grapple with the question of whether its defamation laws strike the right balance between protecting reputations and upholding freedom of speech in a democratic society.
Opinion
Charity or Campaigning?: The blurred line between aid and political influence in Singapore
Opinion: The intersection of charity and politics in Singapore raises questions when politicians appear at events like grocery distributions. While well-intentioned, such appearances can blur lines, influencing vulnerable voters who may associate aid with political figures, impacting free and fair competition.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2024/09/09172825/charity-Grace.png)
The intersection of charity work and politics is a sensitive topic, particularly when voluntary organisations and political figures come together to distribute handouts.
In Singapore, where elections often see the People’s Action Party (PAP) dominate constituencies, these charity-driven distributions, whether intentional or not, sometimes blur the lines between volunteerism and political campaigning.
Grace Fu, a PAP politician representing Yuhua Single Member Constituency (SMC), posted on her Facebook page on 27 August, highlighting an event where student volunteers distributed groceries and household essentials to the residents of Yuhua.
This initiative, organised by the South West Community Development Council (CDC) and HRHS (好人好事), saw volunteers working to help defray living costs for residents.
While the post emphasized the role of kindness, the optics of Fu personally being present to hand out groceries may give rise to questions about the intent behind such appearances.
You can see similar events where Ms Fu is seen along with handouts by charitable organisations to residents in Yuhua.
This brings to mind a conversation I had with Robin Low, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) candidate who ran against Fu in the 2020 General Election.
Low shared his hopefulness during the campaign, buoyed by residents expressing dissatisfaction with the status quo and support for the SDP’s platform. Yet, despite this apparent backing, he was disheartened with the final results, receiving only 29.46% of the vote, a marginal improvement over the 2015 results but a step back from the 2011 outcome.
Low’s experience post-election provides a striking insight into how residents may interpret acts of charity. As he went back to thank voters, he had a conversation with one resident who had expressed support for SDP during the campaign.
When asked why he ultimately voted for Fu, the resident admitted that his decision was influenced by the gratitude he felt for a bag of rice he received, mistakenly believing it came from Fu herself. Low tried to explain that the rice was actually from the NGOs involved in the event, but the resident was confused, noting that Fu was present during the distribution.
This anecdote, while personal, illustrates a broader challenge in Singapore’s political landscape.
While the distribution of goods is often driven by NGOs and charitable causes, the close proximity of politicians to these events can leave a lasting impression on residents—one that may influence voting decisions, particularly among the poor.
For some, the gratitude felt for these handouts, even if provided by a neutral third party, can be transferred to the political figures who appear during the distribution.
This, in turn, complicates the narrative of free and fair political competition, especially when residents are left unclear as to the true source of the support.
The perception that politicians are directly responsible for handouts, whether accurate or not, can sway the votes of the more vulnerable populations who feel a sense of obligation or gratitude for this perceived generosity.
For poorer residents, the immediate and tangible relief from a bag of rice or household essentials may outweigh the less immediate and often abstract promises made during political campaigns. It highlights how acts of charity, even when unintentional, can play a powerful role in shaping electoral outcomes.
This scenario raises questions about the ethical implications of politicians being present at charitable distributions.
While these events can genuinely benefit residents, they also risk being seen as part of a larger campaign strategy, where goodwill is exchanged for political support. It is a complex dynamic that touches on the heart of political ethics in Singapore and calls for clearer boundaries between voluntary aid and electoral influence.
In a broader sense, this reflection encourages us to consider how the provision of aid, particularly to the poor, can be seen as a tool of influence.
-
Singapore4 days ago
Singapore woman’s suicide amidst legal battle raises concerns over legal system
-
Diplomacy7 days ago
India PM Narendra Modi meets with PM Lawrence Wong; Four MoUs signed
-
Opinion1 week ago
Singaporean voters and the ‘Battered Wife Syndrome’
-
Parliament3 days ago
PAP MPs attack WP Gerald Giam in Parliament over NTUC independence from ruling party
-
Parliament2 days ago
Minister Shanmugam rejects request for detailed information on visa-free visitor offences: Cites bilateral considerations
-
Politics6 days ago
PAP adopts SDP policies after criticizing them: Dr Chee urges Singaporeans to see through tactics
-
Food1 week ago
NTU stall food prices questioned after parent pays S$6.30 for meal
-
Civil Society1 week ago
CIVICUS Monitor labels Singapore as ‘repressed’ for crackdown on civic freedoms