On 4 August, veteran food critic KF Seetoh alleged in a Facebook post that hawkers at Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre were contractually required to provide 60 free charity meals per month under a “Pay It Forward” scheme, and that penalties could be imposed for non-participation.
On 11 August, Minister for Health Ong Ye Kung — who is also the Member of Parliament for Sembawang GRC, where the hawker centre is located — responded on Facebook.
He stated: “There are no penalties if they do not or are unable to provide the meals. This simple, well-intentioned initiative was meant to encourage our hawkers to ‘Pay-It-Forward’. In any case, the initiative has yet to commence.”
Ong’s post sought to clarify that the programme was voluntary in spirit, not enforced, and carried no consequences for non-participation.
However, on 13 August, Lianhe Zaobao reported it had reviewed stallholder contracts signed in 2022 and found that they did contain penalty clauses tied to both the charity meal scheme and a loyalty programme.
Each breach would result in six demerit points and a S$50 fine.
Accumulating 12 points within a year could prevent lease renewal, while 24 points could lead to lease termination.
The next day, 14 August, Singapore lawyer Yeoh Lian Chuan referred to Zaobao’s report in a Facebook post.
He argued that Ong’s statement was, in his opinion, “false or misleading within the meaning of POFMA” because it could convey to at least some readers that no penalty clauses existed at all — rather than that they simply were not being enforced yet.
Yeoh stressed that he believed any inaccuracy was likely due to inadequate briefing rather than deliberate misrepresentation. Nonetheless, he saw the case as “yet another illustration” of why POFMA is, in his view, “a bad law”.
Context: POFMA’s scope and one-sided powers
The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) allows only ministers to issue correction or takedown directions.
In practice, this means a minister could only be subject to a correction direction if another minister chose to issue one — a scenario that has not occurred.
The Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre case involves a Social Enterprise Hawker Centre (SEHC), part of a government-managed public policy framework.
In theory, the matter could have warranted a POFMA direction from the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment, just as the Minister for Manpower previously issued one over reports by a Chinese-language site, The Online Citizen (TOC) and Gutzy Asia about the identity of a woman who had taken her own life.
Critics argue this shows POFMA’s reach over public policy issues — but also its one-sided nature, since ministers themselves are outside its enforcement scope.
Past use of POFMA on media reporting
The Online Citizen (TOC) has received multiple POFMA correction directions over the years, often not for its own editorial statements but for its reporting of remarks made by third parties.
In The Online Citizen Pte Ltd v Attorney-General [2021] SGCA 96, the Court of Appeal affirmed that under POFMA, it is the issuing minister who has the legal prerogative to determine the meaning of the statement in question.
The court held that challenges must be mounted on whether the statement is false as interpreted by the minister, rather than on whether that interpretation is the most reasonable or accurate reading in the eyes of the public.
This ruling places a high burden on recipients of POFMA directions.
A publisher must prove that the statement, in the meaning assigned by the minister, is true — even if the publisher disputes that this was the meaning they conveyed or intended.
The judgment did not examine how this broad interpretive power interacts with constitutional rights to freedom of expression under Article 14 of the Singapore Constitution, focusing instead on statutory compliance and process validity.
Critics say this creates a one-sided enforcement structure.
Because only ministers can issue correction directions, there is no public mechanism to compel corrections from ministers themselves, even if their own statements are later shown to be inaccurate.
Following two such correction directions in 2024 and 2025 — over TOC’s reporting on questions about People’s Action Party ministers’ sale and purchase of Good Class Bungalows and the circumstances surrounding state-owned rental property — TOC was once again classified as a Declared Online Location.
This designation makes it illegal for the site to receive financial benefits from its operations for the next two years, effectively crippling its ability to sustain itself commercially.
By contrast, Bloomberg and The Edge Singapore, both of which have been the subject of more than three POFMA “statements of fact” over their reporting, have not been issued with a Declared Online Location order.
Despite repeated queries, the Ministry of Digital Development and Information has not provided a direct explanation for this apparent double standard.
Minister Ong, who is also the Member of Parliament for Sembawang GRC where Bukit Canberra Hawker Centre is located, has not publicly addressed the apparent discrepancy between his “no penalties” statement and Zaobao’s reporting of the penalty clauses in stallholders’ contracts.
The post Lawyer flags potential inaccuracy in Minister Ong’s “no penalties” claim, citing Lianhe Zaobao report appeared first on The Online Citizen.
