Close

HEADLINES

Headlines published in the last 30 days are listed on SLW.

TOC issued Pofma order for saying fake news law used to suppress dissenting views

TOC issued Pofma order for saying fake news law used to suppress dissenting views

Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 17 Dec 2024
Author: Ng Wei Kai

The correction directive will require The Online Citizen to insert a notice on each of its publications, with a link to the Government’s clarification.

Online publication The Online Citizen (TOC) has been issued a correction order for publishing statements that the state has used the fake news law to suppress dissenting views on the death penalty.

TOC had in a Nov 22 article, which was also shared on social media, falsely alleged that the Government has suppressed dissenting views on the death penalty using Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma) correction directives, said the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in a statement on Dec 16. 

The original article written by TOC editor Terry Xu was titled “Singapore’s death penalty: A deterrent, a statement or simply blind faith?”.

It stated that advocacy groups like the Transformative Justice Collective (TJC) – which campaigns for the end of the death penalty in Singapore – are legally required under Pofma to label their statements as falsehoods by publishing correction notices directed by the minister, regardless of context or intent. 

“This effectively forces groups like TJC to concede their views are ‘incorrect’ by government standards, suppressing alternative perspectives and reinforcing the state’s position,” the article claimed.

TJC has in recent months been issued multiple correction directives for statements on the death penalty. 

In its statement, MHA said the state issues such directives only if a false statement of fact has been communicated and if it is in the public interest to do so. 

It added that a Pofma correction direction does not require the recipient to adopt the Government’s position, or to remove the original post. It only requires the Government’s position to be carried alongside the original post, so that readers can read the post containing the falsehoods, together with the official clarifications, and come to their own conclusion, it said. 

“The state does not limit dissent, suppress alternative perspectives, stifle open debate or pressure dissenting voices to conform, as alleged by TOC,” MHA said.

The direction against TOC was issued on the instruction of Minister for Digital Development and Information and Second Minister for Home Affairs Josephine Teo. 

On the correction directions issued to TJC, MHA said the authorities had assessed that it was in the public interest to do so, “as these false statements could erode public trust in the Singapore Government and our criminal justice system, if not clarified”.

MHA also said that TOC had presented an incomplete and misleading version of what Minister for Home Affairs and Law K. Shanmugam had said in a Nov 7 interview with American news channel CNN on the death penalty and Singapore’s anti-drug policies.

“The article omitted relevant facts and selectively quoted the minister, to reach the position that the minister took contradictory positions about Singapore’s drug policies,” MHA said. 

“In particular, the author omitted to set out what the minister had said in explaining Singapore’s success, and why there are ongoing challenges.”

TOC had in its article said Mr Shanmugam had made two statements – one highlighting Singapore’s supposed success in controlling drugs and the other conceding rising arrests and the ongoing challenges, revealing a disconnect. It added that the minister’s responses appeared to lack coherence and raised concerns about “whether the Government’s narrative on deterrence and enforcement is grounded in consistency or shaped for convenience”.

MHA said that taken in context, it would be clear from Mr Shanmugam’s statements that Singapore’s success must be understood in relative terms, and that without the Republic’s zero-tolerance and comprehensive drug policy, including the death penalty, the drug situation here would be much worse.

“The full context of what the minister said had not been set out by the article. It is misleading (and hence false) for the author to omit relevant facts, and selectively quote the minister, to reach the position that the minister had taken contradictory positions about Singapore’s anti-drug policies,” the ministry added.

The correction directive will require TOC to insert a notice on each of its publications, with a link to the Government’s clarification.

In response, TOC made Facebook posts on Dec 16 contesting the Government’s statements. 

In them, it said the correction directive by the Government had misrepresented TOC’s statements on Pofma and Mr Shanmugam’s interview in its Nov 22 article. 

Source: Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Print
405

Latest Headlines

Singapore Academy of Law / 17 Dec 2024

ADV: Singapore International Commercial Court Conference 2025

The upcoming Singapore International Commercial Court Conference 2025 (SICCC) will be an insightful gathering as it celebrates the SICC's 10th anniversary with the theme "Transnational Commerce in a Shifting World". Hear from a...

No content

A problem occurred while loading content.

Previous Next

Terms Of Use Privacy Statement Copyright 2024 by Singapore Academy of Law
Back To Top