Singapore’s mainstream media, including Channel NewsAsia (CNA) and The Straits Times (ST), have yet to report on the Malaysian Federal Court’s landmark ruling on 27 November 2024, involving Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) and Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam.
The ruling, which examines the extraterritorial application of Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), raises significant questions about sovereignty and freedom of expression.
According to the Federal Court, LFL’s challenge against POFMA’s extraterritorial reach will proceed to trial, spotlighting the delicate balance between state immunity and constitutional rights under Malaysia’s Federal Constitution.
This absence of coverage persists despite the ruling’s implications for both Singapore and Malaysia and the Minister’s involvement, prompting questions about whether he will appear in court as the defendant.
This silence aligns with a broader pattern in Singapore’s mainstream media, which frequently omits reporting on sensitive issues that could be perceived as unfavourable to the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).
This is not the first time Singapore’s mainstream media have chosen to refrain from reporting on newsworthy stories.
For instance, when The Online Citizen (TOC) highlighted the S$88 million sale of Minister K Shanmugam’s Good-Class Bungalow in August 2023, the story gained significant public traction and sparked online discussions. However, major outlets did not report on it.
Similarly, the #IdefyPOFMA campaign, which protested against POFMA directions issued by Shanmugam to Kokila Annamalai—an activist under investigation for non-compliance with a POFMA direction—also went unmentioned in local mainstream media. Shanmugam eventually issued a targeted correction direction against Meta regarding posts made under #IdefyPOFMA, avoiding a direct confrontation with the protestors.
These omissions are not confined to stories involving Shanmugam. Other incidents that might cast the ruling party in a negative light have also been left unreported.
For example, a viral message, purportedly from Li Hongyi, son of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, alleged that he had resigned as Director of SingPass and included various observations. However, he remains in his role as Director for Open Government Products within GovTech. This story received no coverage from mainstream media.
Similarly, the judgement involving Kwa Kim Li, who was found guilty of making misleading statements about her role in drafting the late Lee Kuan Yew’s final will, was minimally reported.
While the media covered the government’s allegations against Lee Suet Fern and her husband, Lee Hsien Yang, they omitted details from the Disciplinary Tribunal’s verdict against Kwa Kim Li that could challenge the government’s position, potentially rendering the allegations unreasonable or unjustified.
Even lighter stories, such as the Hougang documentary released by the Workers’ Party, which garnered over 180,000 views and widespread praise, were ignored. For many Singaporeans who do not frequent YouTube, the lack of mainstream coverage meant they remained unaware of its existence.
These omissions raise questions about whether public broadcasters are fulfilling their role of providing balanced and comprehensive news coverage. The examples listed here are only recent instances and do not account for the numerous similar cases that have occurred over the years.
CNA operates under Mediacorp, a Temasek Holdings-owned entity, while ST is managed by SPH Media Trust, which has received a pledge of S$900 million in government funding over five years. These financial ties fuel ongoing debates about whether editorial independence is compromised when reporting on stories that might reflect negatively on government actions or policies.
A growing number of Singaporeans have expressed frustration with the lack of transparency in media coverage.
Viral moments, such as the Workers’ Party’s Hougang documentary or controversies like Li Hongyi’s purported resignation, highlight the gap in reporting on opposition achievements or sensitive government-related stories.
This selective silence perpetuates the perception that state-linked media outlets lack impartiality, potentially undermining public trust in their credibility as independent sources of news.
