Connect with us

Current Affairs

POFMA has been gazetted – it is now the law of the land

Published

5 years ago

on

The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) is officially in effect as it’s been published in the Government Gazette online on 25 June at 5pm.

The bill which was introduced in Parliament on 1 April was passed after a second reading on 8 May. It was then sent to President Halimah Yacob who assented to the law on 3 June before it was published in the Gazette last Friday, making it the law of the land.

During the 105th session of Parliament on 8 May, POFMA was hotly debated – mainly addressing questions and concerns of Worker’s Party MPs – before being passed with 72 votes in support of the bill. There were 9 votes against and 3 abstentions.

The 9 MPs who voted against POFMA were all Worker’s Party members while the 72 who voted for the bill were 72 present PAP MPs and Nominated Members of Parliament (NMP). 3 NMPs abstained from voting after not having their proposed amendments to the bill passed.

A controversial bill

The introduction of POFMA triggered a shockwave of debates around the island about the need for such a law and the possibilities of how the law could be manipulated by errant government ministers to further their political agenda. Overwhelmingly, the concerns revolve around the issues of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Countless experts, activists, NGOs, and members of the public echoed similar concerns, pointing several problems with the law such as:

  1. Any minister can declare a statement to be a falsehood and order an immediate removal or correction of the statement
  2. The person accused of making a falsehood can only seek recourse at the High Court once the minister who made the declaration first rejects their appeal
  3. The High Court can only decide whether the statement was indeed false. It cannot judge on whether the minister’s original declaration and/or order of removal was made ‘in the public interest’ as the law outlines.

Regional and International organisations such as the Asian Internet Coalition, ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights, the UN Special Rapporteur, Reporters without Borders came out against POFMA almost immediately citing infringement of rights and proposing adjustments to the bill. Global tech firm Google said that POFMA would be detrimental to innovation. FORUM-ASIA and CIVIUS described the law as yet another tool for the government to silence dissent and criticism.

Locally, 28 civil society and arts community groups including Maruah, Pink Dot, AWARE, Sayoni, HOME and Function 8 wrote a strong letter of concern over POFMA.

These groups also urged the Singapore government to make several key amendments to the draft of the bill before passing it in order to mitigate the concerns that were raised. However, the law was passed without any amendments.

What the bill is suppose to do, according to the Law Minister

Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam has consistently asserted that POFMA will not infringe on rights such as freedom of the press and freedom of speech as it is only targeted towards individuals who intentionally spread falsehoods. “99% of people don’t have to worry about it 99% of the time,” he said. Many remain unconvinced.

At one point, several NMPs proposed a number of amendments and commentary on the proposed bill. While acknowledging the need for such a law, the NMPs raised concerns that the Act does not contain assurances that limit how the powers can be used in addition to having “broadly worded clauses defining what is a false statement and what constitutes public interest”.

“We are concerned that these broadly worded clauses give the Executive considerable discretion to take action against online communications, without protection in the primary legislation that codifies the assurances given by the Government in explaining the Bill to the public,” said the NMPs.

In response, the Minister cited the potential use of subsidiary legislation to supplement POFMA, indicating that the government does intend to address the concerns raised by the MPs regarding the ministers unfettered discretion to issue orders under the legislation.

Details of this subsidiary legislation have yet to take form, however.

Besides that, in response to criticism that POFMA is redundant as Singapore already has several laws in place that deal with the same issue, Mr Shanmugan said that POFMA has a “narrower set of powers than under existing legislation” which focuses on falsehoods online. He added that the remedies provided for POFMA are “calibrated and provided greater judicial oversight on Executive Action”.

The counter to this is that while the law does afford the High Court jurisdiction to decide on whether a statement is false or not, the judge is still not specifically allowed to make a decision on whether the minister’s executive action is in-line with the provisions of the law – that an order can be made if a person knowingly makes a false statement and that the statement is likely to threaten public interest.

Additionally, Mr Shanmugam explained that the law will go a long way to tighten regulation of tech companies which cannot be expected to regulate themselves. Highlighting incidents such as in Sri Lanka where online rumours led to ethnic violence, attacks and a state of emergency eventually being declared, he said “Facebook users lodged thousands of complaints over hate speech. Facebook did nothing”.

So POFMA, the Law Minister asserted, will help address that issue.

As to whether or not the law will be as effective at combating the spread of fake news as the Minister suggested it would be, that remains to be seen. We also have to wait and see if POFMA will be used as intended on paper or whether it will be used by unscrupulous politicians to silence their critics and stamp out dissent.

Correction to the number of supporting votes and absentations 

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

Current Affairs

Farewell to Dr Lee Wei Ling: Rain marks solemn tribute, echoing her father’s funeral

Dr Lee Wei Ling’s funeral was conducted on 12 October 2024, in Singapore, with family members leading the procession in the rain. In a heartfelt eulogy, her brother, Lee Hsien Yang, remembered her dedication to medicine and family. Dr Lee had requested a simple ceremony, with her ashes to be scattered at sea.

Published

3 days ago

on

12 October 2024

By

Li Huanwu and Li Shaowu sending off their aunt, Dr Lee Wei Ling in the rain (Photo: Lianhe Zaobao/唐家鴻)

Dr Lee Wei Ling was farewelled on 12 October 2024, in a solemn funeral ceremony attended by close family members and friends.

The weather was marked by light rain, drawing comparisons to the conditions during her father, Lee Kuan Yew’s funeral in 2015.

Her nephews, Li Huanwu and Li Shaowu, led the procession, carrying Dr Lee’s portrait and walking side by side under the rain, symbolically reflecting the loss felt by her family.

In his emotional eulogy through a recorded video, her brother, Lee Hsien Yang, spoke of Dr Lee’s profound contributions to medicine and her unshakable devotion to family.

He described her as a remarkable individual whose life had left an indelible mark on those who knew her, as well as on Singapore’s medical community.

Expressing deep sorrow at her passing, Lee Hsien Yang reflected on their close bond and the immense loss he felt, having been unable to attend her final farewell.

He recalled his private goodbye to her in June 2022, a poignant moment that stayed with him during her last months.

Lee Hsien Yang also reiterated Dr Lee’s wish for a simple funeral, a reflection of her humility.

In accordance with her wishes, her body was cremated, and her ashes will be scattered at sea, symbolising her desire for a modest and unobtrusive departure from the world.

LHY acknowledged the efforts of his sons, Li Huanwu and Li Shaowu, for their role in managing their aunt’s care during his absence, thanking them for their dedication to her comfort in her final days.

During his eulogy for his sister, Lee Hsien Yang also conveyed a message from Dr Lee regarding the family’s long-standing issue surrounding their home at 38 Oxley Road.

Quoting from Dr Lee’s message, LHY said: “My father, Lee Kuan Yew, and my mother, Kwa Geok Choo’s, unwavering and deeply felt wish was for their house at 38 Oxley Road, Singapore 238629, to be demolished upon the last parent’s death.”

Dr Lee had been a vocal advocate for ensuring that this wish was honoured since Lee Kuan Yew’s death in 2015.

Dr Lee and LHY had strongly supported their father’s wishes, while their elder brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, took a different stance. This disagreement led to a public and highly publicised rift within the family.

In her final message, Dr Lee reiterated: “Lee Kuan Yew had directed each of his three children to ensure that their parents’ wish for demolition be fulfilled. He had also appealed directly to the people of Singapore. Please honour my father by honouring his wish for his home to be demolished.”

Dr Lee had maintained a private life, focusing on her medical career as a respected neurologist. She was known for her candid views, often unflinching in her advocacy for transparency and integrity.

Her professional accomplishments, combined with her strong commitment to her parents’ legacy, made her a significant figure in both Singapore’s medical community and public discourse.

Diagnosed in 2020 with progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), a rare neurodegenerative disorder, Dr Lee faced immense physical and emotional challenges in her final years.

The illness progressively affected her movement, speech, and ability to swallow.

Despite her health struggles, Dr Lee remained actively involved in public discussions, particularly on matters concerning her father’s legacy, until her condition worsened to the point where communication became difficult.

By March 2023, her brother LHY revealed that her condition had deteriorated significantly, and he feared he might not be able to see her again due to his own circumstances.

Even in her final months, Dr Lee maintained a close relationship with her immediate family, who cared for her during her illness.

Dr Lee’s funeral and cremation mark the end of a significant era for the Lee family and Singapore.

Her legacy as a dedicated neurologist and a firm advocate for her parents’ values will continue to resonate, even as the debates over the future of the Oxley Road property remain unresolved.

The rain that fell during her funeral, so reminiscent of her father’s final farewell, added a symbolic layer to this momentous chapter in Singapore’s history.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

TJC issued 3rd POFMA order under Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC) was issued its third POFMA correction order on 5 October 2024 under the direction of Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods about death penalty processes. TJC has rejected the government’s claims, describing POFMA as a tool to suppress dissent.

Published

1 week ago

on

6 October 2024

By

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), an advocacy group opposed to the death penalty, was issued its third Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) correction direction on 5 October 2024.

The correction was ordered by Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, following TJC’s publication of what the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) alleges to be false information regarding Singapore’s death row procedures and the prosecution of drug trafficking cases.

These statements were made on TJC’s website and across its social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter).

In addition to TJC, civil activist Kokila Annamalai was also issued a correction direction by the minister over posts she made on Facebook and X between 4 and 5 October 2024.

According to MHA, these posts echoed similar views on the death penalty and the legal procedures for drug-related offences, and contained statements that the ministry claims are false concerning the treatment of death row prisoners and the state’s legal responsibilities in drug trafficking cases.

MHA stated that the posts suggested the government schedules and stays executions arbitrarily, without due regard to legal processes, and that the state does not bear the burden of proving drug trafficking charges.

However, these alleged falsehoods are contested by MHA, which maintains that the government strictly follows legal procedures, scheduling executions only after all legal avenues have been exhausted, and that the state always carries the burden of proof in such cases.

In its official release, MHA emphasised, “The prosecution always bears the legal burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and this applies to all criminal offences, including drug trafficking.”

It also pointed to an article on the government fact-checking site Factually to provide further clarification on the issues raised.

As a result of these allegations, both TJC and Annamalai are now required to post correction notices. TJC must display these corrections on its website and social media platforms, while Annamalai is required to carry similar notices on her Facebook and X posts.

TikTok has also been issued a targeted correction direction, requiring the platform to communicate the correction to all Singapore-based users who viewed the related TJC post.

In a statement following the issuance of the correction direction, TJC strongly rejected the government’s claims. The group criticised the POFMA law, calling it a “political weapon used to crush dissent,” and argued that the order was more about the exercise of state power than the pursuit of truth. “We have put up the Correction Directions not because we accept any of what the government asserts, but because of the grossly unjust terms of the POFMA law,” TJC stated.

TJC further argued that the government’s control over Singapore’s media landscape enables it to push pro-death penalty views without opposition. The group also stated that it would not engage in prolonged legal battles over the POFMA correction orders, opting to focus on its abolitionist work instead.

This marks the third time TJC has been subject to a POFMA correction direction in recent months.

The group was previously issued two orders in August 2024 for making similar statements concerning death row prisoners.

In its latest statement, MHA noted that despite being corrected previously, TJC had repeated what the ministry views as falsehoods.

MHA also criticised TJC for presenting the perspective of a convicted drug trafficker without acknowledging the harm caused to victims of drug abuse.

Annamalai, a prominent civil rights activist, is also known for her involvement in various social justice campaigns. She was charged in June 2024 for her participation in a pro-Palestinian procession near the Istana. Her posts, now subject to correction, contained information similar to those presented by TJC regarding death penalty procedures and drug-related cases.

POFMA, which was introduced in 2019, allows the government to issue correction directions when it deems falsehoods are being spread online.

Critics of the law argue that it can be used to suppress dissent, while the government asserts that it is a necessary tool for combating misinformation. The law has been frequently invoked against opposition politicians and activists.

As of October 2024, Minister K Shanmugam has issued 17 POFMA directions, more than any other minister. Shanmugam, who was instrumental in introducing POFMA, is followed by National Development Minister Desmond Lee, who has issued 10 POFMA directions.

Major media outlets, including The Straits Times, Channel News Asia, and Mothership, have covered the POFMA directions. However, as of the time of writing, none have included TJC’s response rejecting the government’s allegations.

Continue Reading

Trending