Channel News Asia’s (CNA) recent article, “Views stay divided on POFMA five years on, but has it helped in tackling fake news?” on the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) is presented as a balanced reflection on the law five years after its enactment after a very controversial parliamentary process.
However, the article raises significant concerns about its lack of objectivity, transparency, and the selective representation of public sentiments toward the law.
Given CNA’s ownership by the Singapore government through Temasek Holdings, these concerns highlight the limitations of state-funded media in critically evaluating government policies. In Singaporean terms, this article shows how “ownself check ownself” literally “cannot make it”.
Lack of Transparency in Claims
The article claims that CNA reached out to “several recipients” of past POFMA orders to discuss their experiences.
Yet, after cross-checking with numerous POFMA recipients, it appears that only two individuals confirmed being contacted.
Crucially, major targets of POFMA orders, such as The Online Citizen (TOC), Kenneth Jeyaretnam, and the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)—all of whom have been frequent recipients of POFMA correction directions—were not approached for comment.
This was confirmed by the above and also by Worker’s Party’s Yee Jenn Jong and Progress Singapore Party’s Leong Mun Wai,
This omission distorts the narrative, leaving out key perspectives from those who have been most affected by POFMA, casting serious doubts on the objectivity of the article as a whole.
Moreover, when contacted for clarification on who among POFMA recipients was reached out to, the article’s author did not respond.
This lack of transparency further undermines the credibility of CNA’s claim that it attempted to consult multiple stakeholders. By selectively omitting arguably the most important voices, the article fails to provide a comprehensive view of how POFMA has been applied or received.
Selective Representation of Public Sentiment
CNA’s portrayal of public sentiment toward POFMA is similarly problematic.
The article claims that “a majority” of those interviewed agreed with the necessity of the law to combat falsehoods.
However, this assertion seems at odds with the article’s reception on social media—or, more specifically, its absence online.
CNA chose not to post the article on its usual primary social media platforms, opting instead to post it only on Telegram.
This unusual choice suggests CNA may have anticipated criticism of the article’s narrative and sought to limit public engagement. This does not speak to confidence in the assertion that the “majority” of those interviewed agreed with the law unless the interviewees were restricted to a very narrow echo chamber.
Even on Telegram, the response was overwhelmingly negative, with 372 users disliking the post versus 70 expressing approval.
While this is not a representative sample of the entire population, it directly challenges the article’s claim that most people support POFMA.
The negative reaction on Telegram further undermines the argument that public sentiment is largely in favour of the law, particularly when the CNA itself avoided posting the article where public scrutiny could be more visible and objectively documented.
TOC also posted a survey on Facebook asking if people were in support of the law, with the majority saying no. We recognized the limitations of the survey and did not try to claim to present a balanced view of the law but rather an estimate of public perception based on an open, transparent survey.
The Hidden Costs of Challenging POFMA
One of the most misleading aspects of CNA’s coverage is the Ministry of Law’s (MinLaw) claim that the lack of challenges to POFMA orders indicates that recipients knew they were spreading falsehoods.
This interpretation ignores the significant financial, emotional, and legal barriers to challenging POFMA orders.
It also ignores the fact that while the majority of POFMA recipients have not formally challenged the orders in court, many of them published statements disagreeing with the correction directions that they were forced to carry.
To get some idea about how onerous a formal legal challenge to a POFMA direction, just visit the instruction page to learn how to go about filing a POFMA appeal; simply looking at the fees and potential costs involved is intimidating enough.
The fees listed also do not include the cost of hiring a lawyer to represent the individual or entity in court. While you can represent yourself in court, based on TOC’s experience, you would be facing three trained legal professionals arguing against you, which would be very challenging, to say the least.
The reality is that for many, complying with a POFMA order is the path of least resistance, especially when the alternative is public embarrassment, legal intimidation (if they cannot afford a lawyer), and the financial burden of a court battle.
TOC, which has filed the most court applications against POFMA with three applications and received the most directions at 15—more if you include Gutzy Asia’s directions—stopped contesting some of the more recent orders not because it admitted to spreading falsehoods but because the legal process is too onerous and costly.
Because of the way the law is written, challenging a POFMA order is, in most cases, less about proving truth or falsehood but rather about how government ministers frame their statements as being false.
The “multiple meanings” rule taken to be the yardstick by which statements are judged under POFMA presents a huge challenge to anyone making a statement as it would imply that any statement has to take into account varied interpretations beyond the original intent of the statement maker. This legal quagmire deters even those with legitimate cases from fighting back.
A prime example is Terry Xu’s case, where he challenged a POFMA order issued by Minister of Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam in 2023.
Despite Mr Shanmugam’s statement in parliament that no costs would be imposed on individuals who contest POFMA orders, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) tried to obtain legal costs from Xu.
The court ultimately rejected AGC’s claim and ordered the AGC to pay Xu S$2,500 in costs for the failed application.
This particular incident highlights the intimidating legal environment surrounding POFMA challenges, where even promises made in parliament appear to be disregarded by government agencies.
Following the Court of Appeal’s ruling that one must establish a prima facie case that the alleged falsehood is true (in other words, that the burden of proof falls on the person who has allegedly made the false statement rather than on the Minister), TOC also had to withdraw its appeal against the POFMA correction direction regarding Ho Ching’s salary after the AGC threatened to seek costs.
It would have been challenging for TOC to contest the case, as the claim originated from a Taiwanese media outlet, which TOC merely reported on. Notably, the Taiwanese media outlet itself was not issued a POFMA correction direction.
This situation highlights a double standard, where media reporting on the government’s claims is not required to verify their truthfulness, given that POFMA directions do not apply to statements made by the government.
It also exemplifies the apparent arbitrariness of the POFMA process, a point that may have been hinted at in the CNA article but was not explored in depth.
A Skewed Perspective on POFMA’s Application
The CNA article also skirts around the fact that POFMA disproportionately targets opposition figures, activists, and independent media outlets.
It briefly notes that nine out of fourteen POFMA cases in 2023 involved opposition members or political candidates but fails to explore the implications of this statistic.
Instead of engaging with the criticism that POFMA is used selectively to suppress dissent, the article repeats MinLaw’s assertion that the process is rigorous and impartial.
However, selective enforcement is a real concern.
For example, the repeated use of POFMA against opposition figures and activists raises questions about whether the law is being applied fairly as promised against threats to public safety or as a tool to stifle political opponents of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).
By failing to address these concerns, CNA’s article gives the impression that POFMA’s application is fair and just and above reproach, which does not align with the experiences of those who have been most affected by it.
The article also fails to address how POFMA directions have predominantly been issued by a particular minister and his ministries.
If POFMA were intended to address falsehoods more broadly, one would expect a more even distribution of applications across different ministries, rather than the clear disparity seen in the statistics. (refer to TOC’s documented directions here)
CNA’s Reporting Reflects the Limitations of State Media
CNA’s article on POFMA misses the opportunity to provide a balanced and transparent evaluation of the law’s impact.
Given that CNA is state-owned and funded by Temasek Holdings, its coverage is naturally aligned with the government’s narrative, which explains the lack of critical engagement with the law’s flaws and controversies.
Rather than providing a platform for meaningful debate, CNA’s reporting reinforces the government’s position on POFMA while excluding key voices from the conversation.
Moreover, the decision to limit the article’s visibility on social media raises concerns about CNA’s willingness to engage with public criticism in general.
Ultimately, CNA’s coverage reflects the broader limitations of state media in critically analyzing government policies.
By failing to engage with all relevant stakeholders and presenting a one-sided view of POFMA, CNA’s reporting risks becoming an echo chamber for official government positions, rather than a platform for balanced, independent journalism.
With the SPH Media Trust also coming under the government’s financial umbrella, Singaporeans are at risk of being deprived of critically important news analysis due to this dominance by a one-sided official narrative.
