Connect with us

Current Affairs

With POFMA, who would risk reporting on ‘controversial’ stories that highlight problems in certain branches of government?

Published

5 years ago

on

You might remember the tragic story from 2016 of 14-year old Benjamin Lim Jun Hui who had apparently committed suicide a few hours after being interrogated by the police for an outrage of modesty case. The horrific incident was first reported by TOC.

Back in 2016, young Benjamin Lim was picked up at school by several police officers after a police report was made by an 11-year old girl who alleged that Benjamin has molested her in the lift of a block of flats. The police has visited the school to “to establish the identity of a student who was captured on closed-circuit television footage at the lift lobby of an HDB block”

After about three hours of interrogation at the Ang Mo Kio Police Divison – during which time Benjamin’s mother was not allowed to see him – the boy was released to his mother who took him home. Several hours later, the family discovered that Benjamin had locked himself in his room. After using a spare key to open the door, they found that Benjamin was nowhere in sight and his window was open. Running down, Benjamin’s mother found him lying on the ground after apparently jumping out of his window 14 floors up.

In the days following Benjamin’s death, speculation was rife as to what led Benjamin to take such a drastic step. His mother had noted that she wasn’t allowed to see him when he was being interrogated and that Benjamin had told her he didn’t do what he was accused of doing. Benjamin did eventually confess, said his mother. When she asked why he had confessed when he didn’t actually do anything wrong, he said “you say I’m guilty, then I’m guilty”.

Benjamin’s father Mr Lim had also told TOC that the principal of the school didn’t share any information about what transpired between the police and his son at the school.

Minister’s clarification

Over a month later, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam made a speech in Parliament regarding the case. In his statement, Mr Shamugam attempted to clarify speculation and conflicting accounts of what had happened.

He said that there was CCTV footage showing Benjamin following the girl into the lift and footage within the lift showing what happened on 25 Jan. He also said that on 26 Jan that plainclothes police officers headed to the school to identify Benjamin. While a student said that the ‘plainclothes’ officers actually wore t-shirts with the word ‘POLICE’ written on the back, Mr Shanmugam denied the claim.

He then said Benjamin was questioned by one officer in the presence of school staff in the principal’s office before being brought to the Ang Mo Kio Police Division for questioning. There, was questioned again by an officer (with another in the vicinity but not part of the questioning). Mr Shan said that Benjamin asked for time to collect his thoughts before giving a statement at 12.15pm admitting to the act.

He added that the 14-year old declined the offer for food and drink after interview. He was then place in temporary holding alone before his mum took him home on S$2,000 bail some 3.5 hours after he first arrived at the police station.

Nothing supported by evidence

The thing is, nothing Mr Shanmugam claimed in his Parliamentary statement is supported by evidence. Neither Benjamin nor his mom (who was also interviewed by the police when she arrived at the station) receive a copy of their statement nor was there an official report from the police of the interrogation or what was said.

All we have is the word of Mr Shanmugam and some floor plans he presented during his speech in Parliament to show where Benjamin was questioned. The minister attempted to systematically counter every claim made by media reports that hinted at mishandling of the case which led to Benjamin jumping out of his 14th floor bedroom window the same day he was interrogated.

In fact, in his speech the minister specifically singled out TOC for reports published on the case for having unfairly tarred the police. He described the reporting as a “planned, orchestrated campaign, using falsehoods”.

In response, TOC published a response to the Minister’s allegations to address several points including that TOC’s report on the police t-shirts were based on what a woman had said which TOC attempted to verify.

TOC even specified that several attempts were made to contact the police for information went unanswered and that the neither the police, Home Affairs or Law Ministries or anyone else from the government reached out to TOC to offer clarification which we would have been happy to present.

The point being that the Minister accused TOC of spreading falsehoods which a deliberate attempt to mislead, which TOC strongly rejects. Though the articles may have contained certain ‘inaccuracies’, these are not the same as falsehoods and given the limited information available to TOC, it’s only natural that some of the reports were not fully accurate. The story was, at the time, still developing and it was made clear that TOC was doing the best with the information on hand.

The 25 odd articles which were published (only 4 of which were written in-house, the rest being opinion pieces and letters from the public) was hardly an ‘orchestrated campaign’ as suggested by Mr Shanmugan.

Who would risk reporting on controversial stories?

Now the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Misinformation Act (POFMA) which was proposed on 1 April 2019 covers not only news that is outright fake but also news or posts that “diminish public confidence” in the government, making it a jailable offence.

The original article published in 2016 detailing the incident and which featured an interview with Benjamin’s mother who recounted what had happened in great detail was written by TOC editor Terry Xu. If POFMA was already in place back then, it’s likely Terry would be imprisoned for writing that article which Minister K Shan described as a “deliberate falsehoods”.

We should note that even if the Minister hadn’t described these articles as falsehoods, there’s no doubt that the story clearly caused alarm in the community as evidenced by the 21 statements, letters, and opinions from the public published by the site. This resulted in the police eventually starting a trial program of having children who are being questioned to be accompanied by appropriate adults, which three years on is still a trial program.

So even if the Mr Shanmugan didn’t attack TOC for allegedly publishing ‘falsehoods’, POFMA would allow him to go after TOC for ‘diminishing public confidence’ in the police.

That being the case, once POFMA is enacted, who would dare to report on stories like this in the future? They would risk putting themselves in the line of fire of POFMA the moment they pointed out the inconsistencies of a story that would subsequently affect public confidence in the government. Who would take that risk?

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

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

22 hours 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

Current Affairs

Hotel Properties Limited suspends trading ahead of Ong Beng Seng’s court hearing

Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has halted trading ahead of his court appearance today (4 October). The announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at about 7.45am, citing a pending release of an announcement. Mr Ong faces one charge of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts and another charge of obstruction of justice. He is due in court at 2.30pm.

Published

3 days ago

on

4 October 2024

By

SINGAPORE: Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), the property and hotel developer co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has requested a trading halt ahead of the Singapore tycoon’s scheduled court appearance today (4 October) afternoon.

This announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at approximately 7.45am, stating that the halt was due to a pending release of an announcement.

Mr Ong, who serves as HPL’s managing director and controlling shareholder, faces one charge under Section 165, accused of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts, as well as one charge of obstruction of justice.

He is set to appear in court at 2.30pm on 4 October.

Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran.

The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.

These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha.

These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.

Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165.

Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, 2024, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.

Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.

On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong.

The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.

Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter. Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.

According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022.

CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.

Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight.

Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.

Mr Ong is recognised as the figure who brought Formula One to Singapore in 2008, marking the first night race in the sport’s history.

He holds the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix. Iswaran was the chairman of the F1 steering committee and acted as the chief negotiator with Singapore GP on business matters concerning the race.

 

Continue Reading

Trending