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.
