Channel News Asia’s (CNA) recent article, “Views stay divided on POFMA five years on, but has it helped in tackling fake news?” on the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) is presented as a  balanced reflection on the law five years after its enactment after a very controversial parliamentary process.

However, the article raises significant concerns about its lack of objectivity, transparency, and the selective representation of public sentiments toward the law.

Given CNA’s ownership by the Singapore government through Temasek Holdings, these concerns highlight the limitations of state-funded media in critically evaluating government policies. In Singaporean terms, this article shows how “ownself check ownself” literally “cannot make it”.

Lack of Transparency in Claims

The article claims that CNA reached out to “several recipients” of past POFMA orders to discuss their experiences.

Yet, after cross-checking with numerous POFMA recipients, it appears that only two individuals confirmed being contacted.

Crucially, major targets of POFMA orders, such as The Online Citizen (TOC), Kenneth Jeyaretnam, and the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)—all of whom have been frequent recipients of POFMA correction directions—were not approached for comment.

This was confirmed by the above and also by Worker’s Party’s Yee Jenn Jong and Progress Singapore Party’s Leong Mun Wai,

This omission distorts the narrative, leaving out key perspectives from those who have been most affected by POFMA, casting serious doubts on the objectivity of the article as a whole.

Moreover, when contacted for clarification on who among POFMA recipients was reached out to, the article’s author did not respond.

This lack of transparency further undermines the credibility of CNA’s claim that it attempted to consult multiple stakeholders. By selectively omitting arguably the most important voices, the article fails to provide a comprehensive view of how POFMA has been applied or received.

Selective Representation of Public Sentiment

CNA’s portrayal of public sentiment toward POFMA is similarly problematic.

The article claims that “a majority” of those interviewed agreed with the necessity of the law to combat falsehoods.

However, this assertion seems at odds with the article’s reception on social media—or, more specifically, its absence online.

CNA chose not to post the article on its usual primary social media platforms, opting instead to post it only on Telegram.

This unusual choice suggests CNA may have anticipated criticism of the article’s narrative and sought to limit public engagement. This does not speak to confidence in the assertion that the “majority” of those interviewed agreed with the law unless the interviewees were restricted to a very narrow echo chamber.

Even on Telegram, the response was overwhelmingly negative, with 372 users disliking the post versus 70 expressing approval.

While this is not a representative sample of the entire population, it directly challenges the article’s claim that most people support POFMA.

The negative reaction on Telegram further undermines the argument that public sentiment is largely in favour of the law, particularly when the CNA itself avoided posting the article where public scrutiny could be more visible and objectively documented.

TOC also posted a survey on Facebook asking if people were in support of the law, with the majority saying no. We recognized the limitations of the survey and did not try to claim to present a balanced view of the law but rather an estimate of public perception based on an open, transparent survey.

The Hidden Costs of Challenging POFMA

One of the most misleading aspects of CNA’s coverage is the Ministry of Law’s (MinLaw) claim that the lack of challenges to POFMA orders indicates that recipients knew they were spreading falsehoods.

This interpretation ignores the significant financial, emotional, and legal barriers to challenging POFMA orders.

It also ignores the fact that while the majority of POFMA recipients have not formally challenged the orders in court, many of them published statements disagreeing with the correction directions that they were forced to carry.

To get some idea about how onerous a formal legal challenge to a POFMA direction, just visit the instruction page to learn how to go about filing a POFMA appeal; simply looking at the fees and potential costs involved is intimidating enough.

The fees listed also do not include the cost of hiring a lawyer to represent the individual or entity in court. While you can represent yourself in court, based on TOC’s experience, you would be facing three trained legal professionals arguing against you, which would be very challenging, to say the least.

The reality is that for many, complying with a POFMA order is the path of least resistance, especially when the alternative is public embarrassment, legal intimidation (if they cannot afford a lawyer), and the financial burden of a court battle.

TOC, which has filed the most court applications against POFMA with three applications and received the most directions at 15—more if you include Gutzy Asia’s directions—stopped contesting some of the more recent orders not because it admitted to spreading falsehoods but because the legal process is too onerous and costly.

Because of the way the law is written, challenging a POFMA order is, in most cases, less about proving truth or falsehood but rather about how government ministers frame their statements as being false.

The “multiple meanings” rule taken to be the yardstick by which statements are judged under POFMA presents a huge challenge to anyone making a statement as it would imply that any statement has to take into account varied interpretations beyond the original intent of the statement maker. This legal quagmire deters even those with legitimate cases from fighting back.

A prime example is Terry Xu’s case, where he challenged a POFMA order issued by Minister of Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam in 2023.

Despite Mr Shanmugam’s statement in parliament that no costs would be imposed on individuals who contest POFMA orders, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) tried to obtain legal costs from Xu.

The court ultimately rejected AGC’s claim and ordered the AGC to pay Xu S$2,500 in costs for the failed application.

Following the Court of Appeal’s ruling that one must establish a prima facie case that the alleged falsehood is true (in other words, that the burden of proof falls on the person who has allegedly made the false statement rather than on the Minister), TOC also had to withdraw its appeal against the POFMA correction direction regarding Ho Ching’s salary after the AGC threatened to seek costs.

It would have been challenging for TOC to contest the case, as the claim originated from a Taiwanese media outlet, which TOC merely reported on. Notably, the Taiwanese media outlet itself was not issued a POFMA correction direction.

This situation highlights a double standard, where media reporting on the government’s claims is not required to verify their truthfulness, given that POFMA directions do not apply to statements made by the government.

It also exemplifies the apparent arbitrariness of the POFMA process, a point that may have been hinted at in the CNA article but was not explored in depth.

A Skewed Perspective on POFMA’s Application

The CNA article also skirts around the fact that POFMA disproportionately targets opposition figures, activists, and independent media outlets.

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.