Connect with us

Politics

Double standards in POFMA enforcement? Minister Desmond Lee remains silent on unequal applications

Despite repeated queries to Minister Desmond Lee, no response has been given regarding the unequal application of POFMA. While CNA was allowed to quietly amend its article on the Lease Buyback Scheme, TOC and other independent media outlets faced immediate POFMA orders for similar issues.

Published

on

The inconsistent application of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) by government ministers has once again come into question.

Despite repeated requests for clarification from National Development Minister Desmond Lee, no explanation has been provided regarding the disparity in how POFMA has been applied.

The issue arose when Channel News Asia (CNA) published an article on 27 August 2024 in which Associate Professor Nicholas Sim incorrectly claimed that the Lease Buyback Scheme computes sales proceeds based on a “straight-line depreciation.”

In response, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) directly engaged CNA, leading to a quiet correction of the article on 2 September 2024 without the issuance of a POFMA correction direction.

In contrast, TOC and other independent media outlets have been swiftly subjected to POFMA correction directions, often without prior engagement or clarification.

POFMA Orders Against TOC, Yee Jenn Jong, and Leong Sze Hian

TOC, for instance, was recently targeted with POFMA orders issued by Minister Desmond Lee on 30 August for reporting on similar topics related to housing grants and government policies.

These orders came just days after POFMA directions were issued to former Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Yee Jenn Jong and Mr Leong Sze Hian.

On 26 August 2024, Mr Yee received a POFMA correction direction for his Facebook posts questioning the MND’s actions during the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) saga. Mr Yee had suggested that the ministry’s decision to withhold grants and engage external auditors was politically motivated. Mr Lee, responding belatedly a month after the posts, claimed that Mr Yee’s statements were “false and misleading,” leading to the correction direction.

On the same day, Mr Leong Sze Hian was issued a POFMA correction direction for discussing means-testing of housing grants in a Facebook post on 21 August. Though Mr Leong acknowledged the existence of income ceilings, MND accused him of making misleading statements and required him to add a correction notice.

The Question of Fairness and Transparency

After reaching out to the Ministry of National Development (MND) and the Minister himself to ask if CNA was given a chance to amend their article without facing the legal consequences of POFMA, MND confirmed that HDB engaged CNA directly to correct the misleading information without issuing a POFMA correction direction.

As for the query on the POFMA application, TOC was simply directed to the POFMA website (https://www.pofmaoffice.gov.sg/resources/) without any further clarification.

There has been no reply from the Minister to clarify this glaring discrepancy of issuance of POFMA directions.

Why was CNA given the opportunity to quietly amend its article without facing a POFMA order, while independent outlets like TOC and individuals such as Mr Yee and Mr Leong faced immediate correction directions? Is it because it would have been embarrassing for state-owned media to receive a POFMA direction and have a correction notice displayed prominently on its front page?

This discrepancy raises serious concerns about fairness and transparency in the application of the law.

During the debate on POFMA’s introduction in 2019, Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, emphasized that the law would not be used to suppress content simply because it might be embarrassing.

He stated, “It could be embarrassing, but that is an irrelevant consideration. The primary factors, as far as the Bill is concerned, is it has got to be false, and it has got to be of public interest.”

He also stressed that if a Minister abused POFMA to suppress content, it would lead to “greater embarrassment” if challenged in court.

The courts have grappled with interpreting statements targeted by POFMA.

In two key cases, Singapore Democratic Party v. Attorney-General and TOC v. Attorney-General, the courts raised questions about whether statements should be considered in context and whether they can have multiple interpretations.

In SDP, the court took context into account, acknowledging multiple reasonable interpretations, while in TOC, a more literal interpretation was used, largely excluding context. This inconsistency highlights the lack of a clear standard for POFMA enforcement and raises concerns that the law could be applied selectively, allowing certain statements to be misinterpreted without considering their broader context.

These rulings reveal gaps in POFMA’s application, challenging the assurances by Minister Shanmugam in 2019 that POFMA would not be abused for personal or political reasons.

Unfortunately, the current approach seems to fall short of ensuring fairness, with Ministers retaining broad powers to interpret statements and issue POFMA directions without consistent judicial oversight.

Minister Lee’s Reputation at Stake

With 10 POFMA correction directions issued to date, Minister Desmond Lee has become the second-most frequent issuer of POFMA orders, just behind Minister K Shanmugam.

Given Mr Lee’s slim 51.68% vote share in the last General Election, he should be particularly mindful of how his actions are perceived by the public.

The selective application of POFMA, especially when state-backed media like CNA are given more leniency than independent platforms, could damage his personal reputation ahead of the upcoming GE which must be held before November 2025.

The silence from Mr Lee on these issues only deepens concerns about the unequal enforcement of POFMA.

The public is left to question whether the law is truly being applied fairly in the public interest or merely as a tool to silence dissenting voices while shielding state media from public embarrassment.

Continue Reading
9 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
9 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Comments

Tan Kiat How: Police called after resident ‘became aggressive’ at meet-the-people session

Senior Minister of State Tan Kiat How shared on TikTok that police were called to his meet-the-people session (MPS) in Bedok on Monday (17 Sept) evening after a resident ‘became a little more aggressive’, reportedly over a job issue. While the PAP MP emphasized the efforts made to assist residents, some netizens questioned the volunteers’ handling of the situation and urged more proactive measures from the MP.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Police were called to a meet-the-people session (MPS) in Bedok after a resident became aggressive, causing a disturbance, according to Member of Parliament (MP) for East Coast GRC Tan Kiat How.

Mr Tan, who represents the Kampong Chai Chee ward, addressed the incident in a TikTok video posted on Monday (17 September).

In the video, Mr Tan, who is also Senior Minister of State for National Development, emphasised the need for mutual respect at these sessions, which are intended to be safe spaces for both residents and volunteers.

“It was unfortunate that the police had to be called to MPS today when a resident became a little more aggressive,” Mr Tan said, acknowledging the incident that occurred during the Monday MPS session at Block 408 Bedok North Avenue 2.

Mr Tan expressed empathy for the challenges faced by residents but urged individuals attending MPS to remain respectful towards volunteers.

“Sometimes you see such cases at MPS, where one of the residents get more aggressive and can be a little bit more violent,” he noted.

He added that while efforts are made to assist residents, certain matters are beyond their control.

“For example, we can’t write to a government agency to demand the agency to offer a job to a person … but we can facilitate and make sure that opportunities are available for our residents,” he explained.

@tankiathow

It was unfortunate that the police had to be called to #MPS today when a resident became a little more aggressive. We always do our best to help #KampongChaiChee residents, but some things are beyond our control. Let’s work towards mutual respect and ensure MPS remains a safe space for both residents and volunteers. #caringeastcoast

♬ Future – Official Sound Studio

Netizens Question Volunteers’ Handling of Situation and Call for Greater Action from MP

The incident drew numerous responses on TikTok, with some expressing support for Mr Tan and others sympathising with the unnamed resident.

One comment suggested that the individual may have been “desperate” for a solution to their issue, while another urged patience, noting that not all cases can be resolved immediately.

Separately, Mr Tan responded to one user by confirming that he had previously helped the resident’s parents.

Some questioned whether the issue arose from a lack of tact by certain volunteers in handling the situation, suggesting that they receive proper training to address residents’ concerns effectively.

In response, Mr Tan emphasized that his volunteers always do their best and that empathy is crucial in such situations.

Another user noted that empathy should be mutual, suggesting that while residents are trying their best, they may feel they have no other solutions, urging Mr Tan to show greater understanding.

One comment pointed out that something significant might have affected the resident, possibly leading them to drastic actions, and called for more proactive measures from the MP rather than just expressing empathy.

This is not the first time an MPS has been marked by aggression.

In 2018, Jurong GRC MP Tan Wu Meng was assaulted by a 32-year-old man, leaving him with injuries.

The assailant was arrested after rushing into the MPS area and attacking Dr Tan.

Similarly, in 2009, Ang Mo Kio GRC MP Seng Han Thong was attacked when a resident doused him with paint thinner and set him on fire. Mr Seng survived but required extensive medical treatment.

Continue Reading

Comments

Netizens criticise SM Lee’s ‘fearmongering’ remarks, call for stronger opposition for checks and balances

In a recent speech, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong warned that slimmer electoral margins could restrict the government’s ability to make long-term decisions. Netizens criticised him for perceived fearmongering ahead of upcoming election, arguing that despite a strong ruling party margin after GE2020, issues like rising prices persisted. Some called for a stronger opposition to ensure better checks and balances.

Published

on

During his speech at the Annual Public Service Leadership Ceremony 2024 on 17 September, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong cautioned that both the public service and Singaporeans need to be aware of the risks if politics becomes more fiercely contested.

He warned that if electoral margins get slimmer, the government will have less political space to do the right things.

“It will become harder to disregard short-term considerations in decision-making. The political dynamics will become very different,” he said.

Mr Lee, who served as Prime Minister for 20 years, highlighted that Singapore has successfully navigated its six decades of nationhood by effectively managing domestic issues and asserting itself internationally.

“All this has only been possible because Singapore has been well-governed all these years,” he added, emphasising three key factors: effective policies and politics, a strong public service, and a positive relationship between public service and political leadership.

SM Lee praised Singapore’s approach to public finance, noting that despite political pressures to increase spending or lower taxes, the country has adhered to fiscal discipline by avoiding deficits and building reserves through prudent savings and investments.

He detailed the process behind the Goods and Services Tax (GST) increase, which was carefully planned and communicated over several years.

“In the 2011 General Election campaign, more than a decade ago, we said that we did not need to increase the GST just yet. In the 2015 General Election campaign, we assessed we could still hold on, and said we did not need a GST increase immediately, but we could see the need for one down the road. ”

Following that election, the Ministry of Finance reviewed projections and determined that an increase was inevitable within a decade, he said.

“The Minister for Finance Heng Swee Keat announced this in the 2018 Budget and to make sure – make absolutely sure – everyone got the message, I said this again the next year at the 2019 PAP Party Convention. ”

“We knew it would cost the ruling party some votes, but we felt strongly that we needed to be responsible and upfront with voters,” he said.

While acknowledging Singapore’s significant progress since 1959, he also outlined future challenges, including global uncertainties such as great power competition, deglobalisation, and climate change.

He referenced Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s plans under the Forward Singapore initiative, which focus on economic upgrading, maintaining international relevance, supporting an ageing population, and consolidating social harmony.

SM Lee also reflected on Jean-Claude Juncker’s observation that governments often know the right actions to take but avoid them due to electoral risks, leading to populism and short-termism in many countries.

He warned that Singapore, despite its current stability, is not immune to these pressures.

He noted that as growth becomes harder to achieve, revenues less buoyant, and political competition more intense, the country faces potential risks.

Netizens highlight persistent issues despite PAP’s strong electoral margin post-GE2020

However, comments on CNA’s Facebook post reveal differing opinions from those of SM Lee.

Some netizens accused SM Lee of employing fearmongering tactics to secure a stronger mandate in the upcoming election, arguing that such remarks aim to manipulate voters rather than address their concerns.

Others suggested that closer electoral margins are beneficial as they indicate public willingness for change and serve as a check on potential abuses of power, advocating for a fairer and more accountable system.

Additionally, some comments pointed out that even with a strong electoral margin for the ruling party in the 2020 General Election, issues like rising prices and COE and HDB costs persisted.

A netizen argued that comparing Singapore’s governance style to the populist approaches of larger countries like China, India, or the USA is unfair, noting the complexity of managing such vast nations.

Calls for stronger opposition to strengthen checks and balances

Some called for a stronger opposition presence to provide necessary checks and balances on the ruling party and ensure greater accountability.

Another comment highlighted that despite the incumbent party’s strong position in elections, there is always a need for quality opposition to challenge their policies and address key issues.

A netizen criticised the government’s focus on high salaries rather than addressing citizens’ struggles with the cost of living, emphasizing that a responsible government should prioritize the needs of its people.

Additionally, a netizen expressed frustration over how the government’s policies have left her parents in a continuous financial struggle, particularly noting her sick and weak parent’s ongoing worries despite the government’s claims of success.

She compared their situation unfavourably with those in other countries who, she feels, are better off despite lacking similar management systems.

Continue Reading

Trending