In the aftermath of a tragic murder at Clementi on 21 October 2024, speculation and false information circulated regarding the identity of the suspect.

The Straits Times inaccurately reported that both the murder suspect and the victim were linked to the grassroots activities of the Trivelis Residents’ Network.

However, this claim was promptly refuted by the People’s Association (PA), which clarified that the suspect was not a grassroots volunteer.

The PA, which falls under the purview of the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), swiftly issued a statement on 22 October confirming that while the victim had been a grassroots volunteer, the suspect had no affiliation with any PA grassroots organisation.

Despite this clear misreporting, no POFMA (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act) correction was issued against The Straits Times.

This situation has raised questions about the consistency of POFMA’s application, particularly in light of its use in previous cases involving misinformation by alternative media outlets.

For instance, in October 2023, the Minister for Manpower directed the POFMA Office to issue correction orders to multiple platforms—including Singapore Eye, Gutzy Asia, and The Online Citizen Asia—for spreading unverified claims regarding the nationality of a suicide victim. Both Gutzy Asia and The Online Citizen Asia had relied on a report from Singapore Eye, which had wrongly identified the deceased as a Filipino domestic worker.

In this case, a case of misidentification of a domestic worker led to the immediate use of POFMA by Dr Tan See Leng to correct the error.

In another instance involving Channel News Asia (CNA), the Housing Development Board (HDB) simply alerted the outlet to a factual error, which CNA corrected with an editorial note, without any POFMA direction being issued by Minister for National Development Desmond Lee, who had previously issued four sets of correction directions to individuals and The Online Citizen without any prior alerts.

In the case of The Straits Times’ erroneous report, it is worth noting that a POFMA direction would have been issued to alternative media or individuals making such claims—rather than the People’s Association (PA) issuing a clarification—if it involved a misrepresentation suggesting the suspect was affiliated with grassroots organisations.

The swift action taken against these smaller, alternative media platforms and individuals contrasts with the lack of any POFMA direction against The Straits Times and CNA in similar situations. This raises the question of whether POFMA is being applied exclusively to alternative media, while mainstream outlets receive different treatment.

If the law is to effectively counter misinformation, it must be applied consistently across all media outlets, whether mainstream or alternative, to ensure fairness and maintain public trust.

The fate of 38 Oxley Road, the former residence of Singapore’s late founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew (LKY), is once again in the spotlight following the National Heritage Board’s (NHB) announcement on 24 October 2024 that it will conduct a new study to assess whether the house should be preserved as a national monument. People’s Action Party (PAP)

This comes after Lee Hsien Yang, LKY’s youngest son, submitted an application on 21 October to demolish the house following the recent passing of his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, on 9 October 2024.

Lee Hsien Yang has reiterated that his father’s will expressed a clear and “deeply felt” wish that the house be demolished once Dr Lee  was no longer living there.

In his statement on 15 October, Lee Hsien Yang declared: “It is my duty as the sole living executor of my father’s estate to carry out Lee Kuan Yew’s wishes to the fullest extent of the law.”

He also pointed out that in 2015, his elder brother, then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, had said in Parliament that the government of the day would decide the fate of the house once his sister no longer lived there.

“It has been nine years. That day is today,” he said, questioning why the government has not yet made a decision.

NHB’s study: Buying time or due diligence?

NHB’s decision to conduct another study has raised concerns about whether the government is simply delaying a difficult and controversial decision.

Lee Hsien Yang, in a comment to Reuters, expressed frustration over the need for further examination, stating, “Many expensive ministerial man-hours were spent and expert input sought to study options, and a detailed report was published in 2018. What need is there now to be studying this further?”

The 2018 ministerial committee, which included then-Finance Minister Lawrence Wong, explored several options for 38 Oxley Road, including demolition, partial preservation, or repurposing the site. However, the committee refrained from making a final recommendation, noting that no immediate action was necessary while Dr Lee continued to live in the house. The understanding was that a decision would follow after her passing.

It was also publicly known that Dr Lee had been severely ill, having battled Progressive Supranuclear Palsy (PSP) since 2020, a rare neurological disorder that significantly affected her movement and health. While PSP generally results in a life expectancy of 5 to 10 years, studies indicate that for older individuals, particularly those in their 70s and beyond, it can be as short as 3 to 5 years.

In a poignant post in March 2023, Lee Hsien Yang revealed that Dr Lee had become “extremely unwell.” He expressed deep sorrow over the possibility that he might never see his sister again due to his own circumstances.

In light of these circumstances, the committee ought to have prepared itself for the eventual decision, considering LKY’s expressed wishes in his will, which stipulated that the house be immediately demolished once Dr Lee no longer resided there.

Why the sudden statement from NHB that a study will now be conducted by NHB’s Preservation of Sites and Monuments Advisory Board, which comprises experts from various sectors, to determine if the site has national historical, heritage, and architectural significance as to be worthy of preservation?

This is especially notable given that a professional study had already been conducted by Alfred William Lermit and Johannes Westerhout Architects and Surveyors, commissioned by NHB, which was included in the ministerial committee report in 2018.

So given that the committee’s work was comprehensive, and Mr Wong, now Prime Minister, was deeply involved in the discussions, it is puzzling to some why a decision has not been made and why a new study is suddenly being commissioned only after Lee Hsien Yang made the application for the house to be demolished.

Adding to this is the comment by Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong, who took to Facebook following the NHB’s announcement.

Mr Tong stressed that “no option should be precluded, or closed off, at this stage” and emphasised the importance of keeping an open mind. He noted that “the passage of time will help us better appreciate the matter in its proper context, with the benefit of some hindsight.”

This message of caution and patience has further fueled speculation that the government may be stalling to avoid making a decision that could go against the majority’s support for demolition before the next general election, which is due in November 2025.

The politics of delay: Is the election a factor?

One could argue that the timing of the NHB’s decision to initiate a new study is politically motivated, potentially aimed at deferring the final decision on 38 Oxley Road until after the general election.

The issue surrounding 38 Oxley Road has been contentious, with strong opinions on both sides. A 2015 YouGov poll revealed that 77% of the 1,000 respondents supported demolishing the house in accordance with Lee Kuan Yew’s wishes.

Of those in favour, 61% felt it was important to honour his wishes, while 39% cited the need to respect his privacy. However, a smaller group viewed the house as a site of historical significance that should be preserved.

This minority view is aligned with the position of the PAP government, whose cabinet members have expressed a preference to preserve the house, despite Lee Kuan Yew’s explicit wish for its demolition.

In his 2017 ministerial statement, then-Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong explained that he had informed his father that, based on the Ministers’ views and public opinion, it would be difficult for him to override the Cabinet and prevent the house from being preserved after his passing.

He added that if he were no longer Prime Minister, it would be even more likely that the house would be gazetted.

“He understood,” Lee Hsien Loong said, indicating that his father had come to accept the strong possibility that the house would be preserved, despite his preference for demolition. This belief that the house would eventually be gazetted also led to it being willed to Lee Hsien Loong, instead of being equally divided among the three children as originally intended.

Making a decision before the election risks alienating the majority of the electorate, as the PAP government’s likely position to preserve the house goes against public sentiment for demolition.

By postponing the decision until after the election, the government may be positioning itself to handle the issue with more confidence, assuming it secures a strong mandate.

Does Lee Hsien Loong still have a say?

Adding further intrigue is the upcoming PAP convention in November, where the party’s leadership will be determined.

A key question is whether Lee Hsien Loong, as former Prime Minister and Senior Minister, will continue as the PAP’s Secretary-General, even after stepping down as head of government in May 2024.

If Lee Hsien Loong remains the party leader, he could still influence key decisions, including the fate of 38 Oxley Road.

His central role in earlier discussions about the property, along with his personal connection as LKY’s eldest son, raises questions about how much sway he may still hold.

Although he claimed to have recused himself from direct involvement due to family conflicts, his continued leadership would likely shape the party’s broader approach to the issue.

What’s next for 38 Oxley Road?

The government’s delay in deciding on 38 Oxley Road appears influenced by political considerations, with concerns that the issue is being pushed beyond the 2025 general election to avoid controversy.

If the PAP secures a strong mandate in the upcoming election, it may feel more confident in deciding whether to demolish or preserve the house. Alternatively, the government may believe that even without a strong mandate, Singaporeans will have moved on from the issue by the time the next general election arrives.

Meanwhile, Lee Hsien Yang remains committed to honouring his parents’ wishes, pushing for the house’s demolition. As the sole legal owner, his application to demolish the property remains pending while the government conducts further studies.

With public sentiment largely favouring demolition and the groundwork laid since 2018, many are left wondering: Why the delay?

In his swearing-in speech as Prime Minister, Mr Wong said, “Shaped by these experiences, our leadership style will differ from that of previous generations. We will lead in our own way. We will continue to think boldly and to think far.”

Whether Lawrence Wong is prepared to make a decisive call on the fate of one of Singapore’s most iconic properties, acting as his own man, remains to be seen.