In the aftermath of a tragic murder at Clementi on 21 October 2024, speculation and false information circulated regarding the identity of the suspect.
The Straits Times inaccurately reported that both the murder suspect and the victim were linked to the grassroots activities of the Trivelis Residents’ Network.
However, this claim was promptly refuted by the People’s Association (PA), which clarified that the suspect was not a grassroots volunteer.
The PA, which falls under the purview of the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), swiftly issued a statement on 22 October confirming that while the victim had been a grassroots volunteer, the suspect had no affiliation with any PA grassroots organisation.
Despite this clear misreporting, no POFMA (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act) correction was issued against The Straits Times.
This situation has raised questions about the consistency of POFMA’s application, particularly in light of its use in previous cases involving misinformation by alternative media outlets.
For instance, in October 2023, the Minister for Manpower directed the POFMA Office to issue correction orders to multiple platforms—including Singapore Eye, Gutzy Asia, and The Online Citizen Asia—for spreading unverified claims regarding the nationality of a suicide victim. Both Gutzy Asia and The Online Citizen Asia had relied on a report from Singapore Eye, which had wrongly identified the deceased as a Filipino domestic worker.
In this case, a case of misidentification of a domestic worker led to the immediate use of POFMA by Dr Tan See Leng to correct the error.
In another instance involving Channel News Asia (CNA), the Housing Development Board (HDB) simply alerted the outlet to a factual error, which CNA corrected with an editorial note, without any POFMA direction being issued by Minister for National Development Desmond Lee, who had previously issued four sets of correction directions to individuals and The Online Citizen without any prior alerts.
In the case of The Straits Times’ erroneous report, it is worth noting that a POFMA direction would have been issued to alternative media or individuals making such claims—rather than the People’s Association (PA) issuing a clarification—if it involved a misrepresentation suggesting the suspect was affiliated with grassroots organisations.
The swift action taken against these smaller, alternative media platforms and individuals contrasts with the lack of any POFMA direction against The Straits Times and CNA in similar situations. This raises the question of whether POFMA is being applied exclusively to alternative media, while mainstream outlets receive different treatment.
If the law is to effectively counter misinformation, it must be applied consistently across all media outlets, whether mainstream or alternative, to ensure fairness and maintain public trust.
The post Why was no POFMA action taken against Straits Times for wrongly linking Clementi murder suspect to grassroots? appeared first on The Online Citizen.