On 28 September, 2024, former NTUC Income CEO and presidential candidate Tan Kin Lian (TKL) posted on Facebook about the takeover of the Tuaspring Desalination Plant by Singapore’s Public Utilities Board (PUB).

TKL had commented that PUB had acquired the plant “for free, at the expense of the investors and bondholders of Hyflux”.

He also suggested that the Tuas NEWater Factory and the Tuaspring Desalination Plant were located at the same site.

This post drew a public response from PUB, which flagged two significant factual inaccuracies.

PUB clarified that the Tuaspring Desalination Plant and the Tuas NEWater Factory are distinct facilities, located about 6 kilometres apart.

Furthermore, PUB stated that it had not acquired the Tuaspring plant “for free”.

According to the PUB, the plant was independently valued at a negative value, meaning Hyflux would have owed compensation to PUB, which was waived due to Hyflux’s financial crisis.

PUB emphasised that its actions did not disadvantage Hyflux’s investors, contradicting TKL’s assertion.

Despite these corrections, no Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) correction notice has been issued against TKL.

However, while PUB’s statement highlights factual inaccuracies, some of Tan’s assertions may carry weight given the circumstances of the takeover and Hyflux’s financial collapse.

The plant was indeed taken over for zero dollars, with PUB waiving compensation from TPL.

The waiver, while justified by PUB as a necessity to safeguard water operations, still meant that Hyflux’s creditors, including 34,000 perpetual securities and preference shareholders owed approximately $900 million, were left empty-handed from the sale of the water plant.

This outcome arguably made the recovery of financial losses less possible for retail investors who had placed their faith in the once-renowned water management firm.

PUB’s statement further explained that its actions did not weaken Hyflux or exacerbate the situation for bondholders.

However, the broader context reveals that Hyflux’s collapse, largely due to mounting debts and mismanagement, severely impacted its investors, many of whom were left with substantial losses.

Whether PUB’s actions could have been different is a matter of debate, as Tan’s criticism reflects the frustration of retail investors who felt sidelined during Hyflux’s downfall.

Double Standards in POFMA Enforcement?

Nevertheless, the case before us raises serious questions about whether POFMA is being applied consistently or if its enforcement is selective.

Under POFMA, government ministers can issue correction notices or takedown orders if a statement about their ministries is deemed false and harmful to the public. However, the decision to invoke POFMA appears inconsistent when examining how similar cases have been handled in the past.

For example, correction orders have often been issued quickly, without first engaging the individual or media outlet responsible for the misinformation to correct their statement or include notes to clarify. This has happened even when the media was merely reporting a statement made by a third party and was not the originator of the alleged false information.

On the other end, you have cases such as how the Singapore Housing and Development Board (HDB) flagged an error in a report by Channel News Asia (CNA) concerning the valuation of the Lease Buyback Scheme, without issuing a POFMA correction notice.

In this case, CNA quietly amended its article and added an editor’s note without any POFMA notice being served.

This lenient approach contrasts sharply with other situations where POFMA orders were swiftly issued, often without public engagement or clarification.

When asked about the standards for issuing POFMA correction directions and when clarifications are made, Minister for National Development Desmond Lee declined to respond. Mr Lee had previously issued four correction directions within a matter of days.

Such instances highlight a lack of consistent engagement before the full force of POFMA is applied.

The law has also been enforced more vigorously in cases involving opposition politicians or sensitive topics.

For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, several POFMA orders were issued to social media users for allegedly spreading misinformation about government policies.

Similarly, POFMA orders were issued after Minister K Shanmugam, the architect of the law, directed corrections on matters related to law enforcement and on the controversy surrounding the leasing of Ridout Road properties, in which he was personally involved.

In these cases, no opportunity for clarification or voluntary correction was extended prior to the issuance of POFMA orders, further illustrating the inconsistent application of the law.

While PUB’s clarification addressed the factual errors in TKL’s post, the decision not to issue a POFMA notice raises concerns about selective enforcement.

The broad discretionary power given to ministers under POFMA enables them to decide when a correction is necessary.

This ability to decide, without clear guidelines or standards for intervention, contributes to public scepticism about the fairness of POFMA’s enforcement.

While many disagree with the existence of POFMA, as it risks stifling free speech and open debate, its arbitrary enforcement is an even more serious concern.

The selective use of POFMA indicates a drift towards rule by law rather than rule of law, where the application of legal measures is determined by convenience rather than principle.

Such practices erode trust in the legal system and raise serious concerns about the impartiality of governance in Singapore.

Former Singapore transport minister S Iswaran, now serving a 12-month prison sentence, has been placed in a single-man cell due to concerns for his safety and security.

The Singapore Prison Service (SPS) confirmed this arrangement following an assessment upon his arrival. The decision was made to reduce potential risks associated with placing him in a shared cell with other inmates.

SPS explained that Iswaran’s cell measures 6.9 square metres and includes basic toilet facilities.

He has been provided with a straw mat and two blankets for sleeping, similar to other inmates.

Despite the public interest in his case, SPS has clarified that Iswaran is subject to the same prison rules and regulations as any other inmate.

Inmates are routinely subjected to a safety, security, and medical assessment upon their admission.

During this process, all personal belongings are collected for safekeeping, and inmates undergo searches for contraband before being examined by a Prison Medical Officer. Basic necessities, such as toiletries and clothing, are provided to all inmates, including Iswaran.

While single-man cells are used when safety or security concerns are present, most prison cells in Singapore can accommodate up to four or eight inmates, depending on each prisoner’s assessed risk level and needs.

SPS also noted that inmates with serious medical conditions are placed in specialised medical units, but in Iswaran’s case, the use of a single cell was strictly related to security concerns.

Like other inmates, Iswaran is allowed contact with his family, including two visits per month—one of which may be face-to-face—and the option to send up to four electronic letters. These arrangements help maintain prisoners’ social ties while they serve their sentences.

My reflection: Comparing single and shared prison cells

When I first entered prison in 2022 for the criminal defamation of cabinet members for corruption—oh, the irony—I was placed in a single-man cell for nine days, not for safety or security reasons, but due to COVID-19 isolation protocols designed to prevent the spread of infection.

Following this period, I was moved into a four-man cell with another two other inmates for the remainder of my sentence. My experience in both types of cells gave me a clear understanding of their differences in terms of comfort and practical living conditions.

The single cell I was placed in during isolation was around 6.9 square metres, including toilet facilities.

The space was small, with just a straw mat and two blankets (rolled up as a pillow) for sleeping.

While the living conditions were basic, the fact that I had the cell to myself allowed for a degree of privacy. Having a toilet to myself, for example, meant I didn’t need to coordinate its use with others, which made day-to-day living simpler.

After my isolation ended, I was moved into a four-man cell. The shared cell, at about 10 square metres, provided far less space per person. Each inmate had around 2.5 to 3.3 square metres, and it quickly became clear that living in a shared space required constant coordination.

With four men in a confined space, managing access to basic facilities like the toilet and shower became more complicated. Inmates had to be mindful of each other’s schedules and needs, as the cell was too small for everyone to use these facilities simultaneously.

In the shared cell, sleeping arrangements were also more restricted. With limited space, inmates sometimes had to sleep in close proximity, often side by side.

In the three-man configuration, each inmate could sleep side by side, and the spot near the door was considered the best because a slight breeze could enter through a small opening. However, the spot closest to the toilet was less desirable due to the odours and frequent disturbances when others needed to use it.

In a four-man configuration, the situation became even more cramped. With the additional person, inmates would have to adjust their sleeping positions so that everyone could fit. While you still can sleep side by side, most inmates would choose to sleep with their feet positioned near someone else’s head.

Another significant difference between the two settings was the temperature and air circulation. In the shared cell, with multiple bodies in such a small space and no air conditioning, the room could become quite warm.

Most of us would take off our shirts to cope with the heat during the day, though we had to dress appropriately for the guards’ roll calls. In the single cell, managing the heat was easier, as I could take more frequent showers and cool down without having to consider the impact on others.

The lack of privacy and space in the shared cell made everyday tasks more challenging. Inmates had to coordinate and time their activities to ensure everyone had access to the limited facilities. Bathing also had to be managed carefully to avoid splashing water onto others, as the confined space made it difficult to avoid disturbing cellmates.

In contrast, the nine days I spent in the single-man cell, though solitary, allowed me to maintain more control over my personal space and routine. I could use the toilet, shower, and move around without needing to consider the schedules or preferences of others. While being isolated might seem undesirable, the absence of conflict and the ability to manage my own space made the single cell experience far more manageable.

Although some claim online that solitary confinement drives people crazy, inmates like Iswaran—unlike those on death row—are permitted one hour outside their cell each day and, on some days, yard time, except on Sundays. If religious activities are conducted, inmates are also allowed time outside to participate.

While there is a limit on how many letters an inmate can send out, there is apparently no limit on how many people can send letters to him via the tablet, which he does not need to share in a single cell. Iswaran could have someone regularly send him electronic letters to stay updated on events outside.

In summary, the single-man cell, though basic and isolated, provided a level of comfort that the shared cell could not. The additional space, privacy, and control over daily activities in the single cell made it a preferable option.

While living with others in a shared cell required constant compromise and coordination, the solitary nature of the single cell simplified the challenges of prison life.

Based on my experience, the single cell offered a more practical and comfortable environment for coping with the conditions of imprisonment.