Connect with us

Politics

Double standards in POFMA enforcement? Minister Desmond Lee remains silent on unequal applications

Despite repeated queries to Minister Desmond Lee, no response has been given regarding the unequal application of POFMA. While CNA was allowed to quietly amend its article on the Lease Buyback Scheme, TOC and other independent media outlets faced immediate POFMA orders for similar issues.

Published

on

The inconsistent application of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) by government ministers has once again come into question.

Despite repeated requests for clarification from National Development Minister Desmond Lee, no explanation has been provided regarding the disparity in how POFMA has been applied.

The issue arose when Channel News Asia (CNA) published an article on 27 August 2024 in which Associate Professor Nicholas Sim incorrectly claimed that the Lease Buyback Scheme computes sales proceeds based on a “straight-line depreciation.”

In response, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) directly engaged CNA, leading to a quiet correction of the article on 2 September 2024 without the issuance of a POFMA correction direction.

In contrast, TOC and other independent media outlets have been swiftly subjected to POFMA correction directions, often without prior engagement or clarification.

POFMA Orders Against TOC, Yee Jenn Jong, and Leong Sze Hian

TOC, for instance, was recently targeted with POFMA orders issued by Minister Desmond Lee on 30 August for reporting on similar topics related to housing grants and government policies.

These orders came just days after POFMA directions were issued to former Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Yee Jenn Jong and Mr Leong Sze Hian.

On 26 August 2024, Mr Yee received a POFMA correction direction for his Facebook posts questioning the MND’s actions during the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) saga. Mr Yee had suggested that the ministry’s decision to withhold grants and engage external auditors was politically motivated. Mr Lee, responding belatedly a month after the posts, claimed that Mr Yee’s statements were “false and misleading,” leading to the correction direction.

On the same day, Mr Leong Sze Hian was issued a POFMA correction direction for discussing means-testing of housing grants in a Facebook post on 21 August. Though Mr Leong acknowledged the existence of income ceilings, MND accused him of making misleading statements and required him to add a correction notice.

The Question of Fairness and Transparency

After reaching out to the Ministry of National Development (MND) and the Minister himself to ask if CNA was given a chance to amend their article without facing the legal consequences of POFMA, MND confirmed that HDB engaged CNA directly to correct the misleading information without issuing a POFMA correction direction.

As for the query on the POFMA application, TOC was simply directed to the POFMA website (https://www.pofmaoffice.gov.sg/resources/) without any further clarification.

There has been no reply from the Minister to clarify this glaring discrepancy of issuance of POFMA directions.

Why was CNA given the opportunity to quietly amend its article without facing a POFMA order, while independent outlets like TOC and individuals such as Mr Yee and Mr Leong faced immediate correction directions? Is it because it would have been embarrassing for state-owned media to receive a POFMA direction and have a correction notice displayed prominently on its front page?

This discrepancy raises serious concerns about fairness and transparency in the application of the law.

During the debate on POFMA’s introduction in 2019, Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, emphasized that the law would not be used to suppress content simply because it might be embarrassing.

He stated, “It could be embarrassing, but that is an irrelevant consideration. The primary factors, as far as the Bill is concerned, is it has got to be false, and it has got to be of public interest.”

He also stressed that if a Minister abused POFMA to suppress content, it would lead to “greater embarrassment” if challenged in court.

The courts have grappled with interpreting statements targeted by POFMA.

In two key cases, Singapore Democratic Party v. Attorney-General and TOC v. Attorney-General, the courts raised questions about whether statements should be considered in context and whether they can have multiple interpretations.

In SDP, the court took context into account, acknowledging multiple reasonable interpretations, while in TOC, a more literal interpretation was used, largely excluding context. This inconsistency highlights the lack of a clear standard for POFMA enforcement and raises concerns that the law could be applied selectively, allowing certain statements to be misinterpreted without considering their broader context.

These rulings reveal gaps in POFMA’s application, challenging the assurances by Minister Shanmugam in 2019 that POFMA would not be abused for personal or political reasons.

Unfortunately, the current approach seems to fall short of ensuring fairness, with Ministers retaining broad powers to interpret statements and issue POFMA directions without consistent judicial oversight.

Minister Lee’s Reputation at Stake

With 10 POFMA correction directions issued to date, Minister Desmond Lee has become the second-most frequent issuer of POFMA orders, just behind Minister K Shanmugam.

Given Mr Lee’s slim 51.68% vote share in the last General Election, he should be particularly mindful of how his actions are perceived by the public.

The selective application of POFMA, especially when state-backed media like CNA are given more leniency than independent platforms, could damage his personal reputation ahead of the upcoming GE which must be held before November 2025.

The silence from Mr Lee on these issues only deepens concerns about the unequal enforcement of POFMA.

The public is left to question whether the law is truly being applied fairly in the public interest or merely as a tool to silence dissenting voices while shielding state media from public embarrassment.

Continue Reading
13 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
13 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Politics

PPP questions sentencing in Iswaran case, seeks clarification on AGC decisions

The People’s Power Party has sought greater clarity from the Attorney-General’s Chambers on why the charges against former Transport Minister Iswaran were reduced from corruption to offences under Section 165, despite the existence of Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which carries a presumption of corrupt intent.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: The People’s Power Party (PPP) has raised concerns over the recent sentencing of former Transport Minister Iswaran, calling for a harsher punishment and more clarity from the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC).

In a Facebook post on Monday (7 Oct), the PPP acknowledged the High Court’s decision but expressed disappointment that the sentence did not fully reflect the seriousness of the charges.

The party agreed with High Court Judge Vincent Hoong’s assessment that the proposed sentences from both the prosecution and defence failed to address the gravity of the 34 counts of gratification involving a public servant. These acts of gratification amounted to S$403,300 in total.

However, the PPP voiced its expectation for a more severe penalty, believing that a longer sentence would send a stronger deterrent message to public officials and officeholders. “The sentence should fully reflect the severity of the charges,” the party noted.

In addition to their concerns about the sentencing, the PPP sought clarification on the AGC’s statement from 24 September 2024 regarding the application of Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).

This section presumes corrupt intent unless proven otherwise, shifting the burden of proof to the accused. The PPP expressed interest in understanding how this legal provision was applied to Iswaran’s case and why the charges were eventually reduced from corruption to lesser offences under Section 165 of the Penal Code.

Alternative political parties call for more transparency

The PPP is not the only political party expressing dissatisfaction with the outcome of the case. The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) had also issued a statement earlier, with Secretary-General Hazel Poa calling for more transparency from the AGC.

In her statement, Poa acknowledged the high public interest in the case and urged the AGC to provide further clarity regarding its prosecutorial decisions.

Like the PPP, the PSP questioned why the charges were amended from corruption to lesser offences and emphasised the need for a sentence that would serve as a stronger deterrent to future misconduct by public officials.

Potential precedent and concerns about deterrence

Both the PPP and PSP have expressed concerns that this case could set a dangerous precedent for future corruption-related cases, particularly those involving high-ranking public servants.

The PPP noted that the reduced charges and relatively short sentence might not adequately reflect the gravity of the offences, potentially weakening the message of deterrence that the legal system aims to convey.

In its statement, the PPP emphasised the need for stronger legal measures and prosecutorial strategies in cases involving public officials.

The party suggested that clearer guidelines should be established to ensure that future cases of corruption or misconduct are handled in a way that reflects the severity of the offences and serves as a strong deterrent.


Iswaran begins sentence, opts not to appeal

Initially, Iswaran faced 35 charges, including two counts of corruption under the PCA. However, on 24 September 2024, the AGC amended the charges to less severe offences under Section 165 of the Penal Code, which pertains to public servants receiving valuable items in connection with their duties.

The AGC explained that it had encountered substantial evidentiary risks in pursuing the original corruption charges.

These risks stemmed from the fact that both Iswaran and the businessmen involved would likely deny any corrupt intent, making it difficult to prove inducement or bribery.

The AGC noted that the primary parties in the transactions had a vested interest in denying corruption, which complicated the case and reduced the likelihood of a conviction under the PCA.

Despite these challenges, Iswaran admitted to obstructing the course of justice by repaying S$5,000 for a business-class flight that Ong Beng Seng had arranged. The court considered this and the remaining 30 charges when sentencing Iswaran to 12 months in prison.

Contrary to earlier speculation that Iswaran might appeal the sentence, the former Minister announced on 7 October 2024 that he would not be filing an appeal.

Following this announcement, Iswaran has begun serving his 12-month sentence, marking the conclusion of a high-profile case that has drawn significant public interest. His decision not to appeal signals the end of the legal proceedings, though the ramifications of the case continue to be discussed by political parties and the public.

Iswaran had been sentenced for four counts of receiving valuable gifts while holding public office, in violation of Section 165 of the Penal Code. He was also convicted of one count of obstructing justice. His actions, which involved gifts from prominent businessmen Ong Beng Seng, chairman of Singapore GP, and David Lum Kok Seng, managing director of Lum Chang Holdings, were part of a broader investigation into corruption and misconduct by high-ranking officials.

Ong has since been charged with two charges, but there will not be any charge against Lum, according to the AGC.

Continue Reading

Comments

SMRT cleans ‘spotty’ train flooring after Lim Tean’s public complaint

SMRT addressed concerns about train flooring in a Facebook post, sharing photos of workers cleaning the fourth-generation C151A trains. The operator noted that this cleaning has been completed on most trains in the C151A fleet. Netizens pointed out the timing, as the cleaning followed a complaint from Peoples Voice chief Lim Tean about “speckled” flooring observed while riding the East-West Line.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Last Friday (4 Oct), SMRT addressed concerns regarding the flooring in some of its trains through a Facebook post, explaining that the surfaces may appear “dull and spotty” due to dirt accumulation trapped within the sealant.

The train operator outlined the steps being taken to restore the flooring to a cleaner condition.

Accompanying the post were photos showing SMRT workers cleaning the fourth-generation C151A trains.

After the initial cleaning is done, workers will then apply a fresh layer of sealant on the floor.

The cleaning process involves two steps: first, scrubbing away the trapped dirt, followed by the application of a fresh layer of sealant.

SMRT also noted that this process has been completed on most trains in the C151A fleet.

While many netizens expressed appreciation for SMRT’s efforts to enhance the appearance of train floors, some suggested extending cleaning maintenance to various stations.

One user pointed out the presence of thick dust and grime, particularly in high-traffic areas such as Orchard, Dhoby Ghaut, Little India, and Farrer Park.

The discussion also referenced a recent Facebook post by Lim Tean, the leader of the Peoples Voice (PV), who first raised the concern about the train floors.

On 1 October, Lim shared an image taken while riding the East-West Line, highlighting the “speckled flooring” he claims is a common sight.

“Doesn’t this look like a train in a third-world country? Has SMRT gone Bohemian, thinking that the trains they operate should exhibit a ‘natural wear and tear’ look, in line with their philosophy of not over-maintaining?” he questioned.

Lim further critiqued the privatisation of public services, alleging that corporate shareholders reap generous returns year after year at the expense of everyday commuters.

Lim’s post has since attracted over 220 shares, sparking further conversation about the state of public transportation in Singapore.

Continue Reading

Trending