Why no POFMA correction for media reports quoting Jackson Lam’s statement?

Date:

Box 1


On 27 September 2025, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) and Ministry of National Development (MND) issued a joint statement refuting claims that mediation occurred between neighbours involved in a fatal stabbing in Yishun.

Box 2

The clarification stated that the mediation did not proceed, as the accused party — Koh Ah Hwee — did not respond to the mediation invitation.

This statement directly contradicted earlier remarks made by Nee Soon GRC Member of Parliament Jackson Lam, which had been widely reported by mainstream outlets including The Straits TimesChannel NewsAsia, and Mothership.

Lam’s comments, based on communication from the Housing and Development Board (HDB), suggested that mediation had taken place, with the implication that the system had been engaged and had failed to resolve the dispute.

Box 3

No Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) correction was issued in response to these reports — despite the factual contradiction by the relevant ministries. This lack of action stands in contrast to how POFMA has been applied in other contexts, and raises pressing questions about the neutrality of its enforcement.

Inconsistencies in enforcement

In February 2024, opposition MP Leong Mun Wai was issued a POFMA correction direction for posting what were deemed falsehoods about financial aid provided to a couple in West Coast.

Box 4

The posts were subsequently republished by The Online Citizen and Gutzy Asia, who were also served with correction notices. The Ministry of Social and Family Development released extensive details refuting Leong’s claims.

In that case, inaccuracies concerning the extent of support received — including small factual errors and omissions — were judged sufficient to trigger legal correction measures under POFMA. The implication was clear: any public misinformation, particularly concerning government services, warranted formal correction to maintain public trust.

Yet, in the present Yishun case, a similar inaccuracy — propagated by a Member of Parliament and amplified by national media — has not attracted a comparable response, despite its potential to mislead the public about the functioning of the mediation system.

This raises the uncomfortable but unavoidable question: are POFMA corrections applied more stringently to opposition politicians, civil society activists, and independent media, while public figures aligned with the ruling party receive greater leeway?

A troubling precedent

The failure to issue a POFMA correction in this case could set a concerning precedent. It suggests that factual inaccuracies disseminated by media quoting Members of Parliament from the ruling party may be exempt from scrutiny — unless publicly contested or politically challenged.

At the same time, activists and opposition figures risk being subject to POFMA even for minor, goodwill errors or interpretive inaccuracies. In such cases, correction directions are not only issued but often include detailed public rebuttals, official notices on posts, and warnings against further speculation.

The pattern that emerges is not one of legal neutrality, but of selective enforcement.

It is particularly troubling that the inaccurate claim in this case was published by major media outlets — including national broadcasters and newspaper groups — without facing any repercussions, despite being contradicted by official statements.

This disparity could suggest that these outlets are effectively shielded from the law when reporting ruling party perspectives, even if those statements are subsequently revealed to be factually incorrect.

In contrast, these same outlets — and online platforms — may find themselves compelled to issue corrections if they publish or relay statements from opposition figures that are later disputed by the government.

Implications for media independence and public trust

The inconsistency in enforcement does not only affect politicians or media organisations. It impacts the wider public, who must rely on accurate and consistent information in order to understand policy issues, assess governance, and participate meaningfully in civic discourse.

If the public begins to perceive POFMA as an instrument that disproportionately targets certain groups while shielding others, the credibility of the legislation — and by extension, the institutions that enforce it — may be compromised.

More broadly, such selective enforcement may have a chilling effect on speech, particularly from civil society, opposition politicians, and independent news outlets. Knowing that even small misstatements may result in legal correction while official narratives are given more latitude could dissuade critical engagement and erode media diversity.

Clarifying the purpose of POFMA

When POFMA was introduced, it was framed as a tool to protect the public against the harms of deliberate online falsehoods and manipulation. Its stated purpose was to uphold factual accuracy, not to serve as a political shield or weapon.

If the law is to maintain its legitimacy, it must be enforced fairly, transparently, and consistently — regardless of the political affiliation of the speaker or the platform of publication.

This includes being willing to correct inaccuracies from within the establishment, even when they are made in good faith, and even when they are repeated by mainstream media outlets.

In the absence of such consistency, the concern arises that the law may be perceived — and perhaps used — not merely as a tool for truth, but as a mechanism for control.

The post Why no POFMA correction for media reports quoting Jackson Lam’s statement? appeared first on The Online Citizen.



Source link

Box 5

Share post:

spot_img

Popular

More like this
Related

Swap of Israeli Hostages and Palestinian Prisoners Begins

new video loaded: Swap of Israeli Hostages and...

Jo Teo challenges Ho Ching’s defence of Singapore’s electoral boundaries and vote value fairness

SINGAPORE: Jo Teo, a mathematical and theoretical physicist...