Opinion
Flawed POFMA legislation: A hypothetical scenario in Thailand
Opinion: Had Thailand enacted a law like Singapore’s POFMA, media outlets reporting the Bangkok hotel deaths as a shooting would face severe repercussions, even after corrections. This scenario highlights POFMA’s flaws, revealing its selective enforcement and inherent bias, targeting critics while shielding major media.
On Tuesday evening, 16 July, Reuters reported a tragic incident in Bangkok where six individuals were found dead in a hotel room.
Initial reports, including those from Matichon newspaper and other Thai media outlets, cited local police stating that these individuals were killed in a shooting.
Major news outlets such as Channel News Asia swiftly carried the story, titled “Six dead after shooting at hotel in Thai capital Bangkok, media report” reflecting the gravity of the situation.
However, within an hour, the narrative took a dramatic turn.
Thai police refuted the initial claim of a shooting, suggesting instead that the six individuals, including two Vietnamese Americans, may have been poisoned. The bodies were discovered in a fifth-floor room at the Grand Hyatt hotel after staff noticed the guests had missed their check-out time by over 24 hours.
This rapid evolution of facts is not uncommon in breaking news situations, where initial information can often be incomplete or inaccurate.
Had Thailand implemented a law akin to Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), these news outlets would have faced severe repercussions.
This is reminiscent of the situation where Gutzy was issued a POFMA direction after it cited a claim made by Singapore Eye, stating that a suicide victim was a domestic worker, with no clarification made until POFMA directions were issued to Gutzy and Singapore Eye for their reports.
Even if the news outlets had promptly updated their stories to reflect the new information, they would still be subjected to POFMA’s stringent correction directives—had Thailand enacted similar laws.
This would entail not only amending their articles but also posting corrections on their social media pages and prominently on their websites’ front pages. Furthermore, they will then be marked for Declared Online Locations with three false statements of facts, which make the financial gains of their operation illegal.
But let’s be honest, would any minister dare to compel major newspapers and reputable media outlets to comply with such directives?
They would likely resort to diplomatic channels, with ambassadors drafting stern letters expressing their dissatisfaction, as how Singapore reported in examples such as its dealing with the Financial Times and The Economist.
The double standard is glaringly obvious: critics and political opponents who lack the power and resources to fight back would likely be issued POFMA directions contrary to establishment entities and figures.
This hypothetical scenario starkly illustrates the flaws in the POFMA legislation.
The law, under the guise of combating misinformation, is selectively enforced by ministers. It’s not about the integrity of information but about who controls the narrative.
Major media outlets, often shielded by their influence and resources, escape the punitive measures that are swiftly applied to dissenters and political adversaries.
Take, for example, when The Online Citizen reported on how Taiwan media claimed that Ho Ching was earning S$99 million a year as CEO of Temasek.
Instead of issuing a POFMA direction to the Taiwanese media outlet, which made the claim, correction directions were issued to TOC and others who had shared the TOC article. The media which made the allegation faced no repercussions for their statement, which was shared more widely than TOC’s.
Applying POFMA in Thailand’s context would reveal the same inherent biases and inequities that critics argue are present in Singapore.
This episode underlines the need for a more equitable approach to handling misinformation, one that holds all parties accountable, regardless of their power or influence.
Or perhaps more fittingly, a review of how the supposed law introduced by Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam to prevent misinformation and disinformation is applied in real life.
