Recent reports by AFP, Reuters, and the Associated Press (AP) have stated that Italian swimmers Benedetta Pilato and Chiara Tarantino returned to Italy after their arrest in Singapore, allegedly with assistance from Italian diplomatic officials — a claim that appears to conflict with statements made in Parliament by Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam.
In a 9 October 2025 article, Reuters reported that the swimmers were “briefly detained by local authorities before being released with the assistance of Italian diplomatic officials”.
The report, citing Italian media and the Italian Swimming Federation, also noted that the swimmers had been suspended for 90 days following the incident, which took place during a stopover in Singapore after a holiday in Bali.
On the same day, the Associated Press (AP), also citing Italian media, reported that the swimmers “were released after the Italian embassy intervened on their behalf”.
A day later, on 10 October, AFP similarly reported that the pair were “able to return to Italy on August 20 after Italian authorities intervened”.
These accounts appear to diverge from Shanmugam’s response to Parliamentary questions filed by Workers’ Party Member of Parliament Gerald Giam on 24 September 2025, in which he stated that there were “no diplomatic interventions to influence the legal outcome” of the case.
In a written reply, Shanmugam said the swimmers had been arrested on 14 August 2025 for shoplifting cosmetic products worth approximately S$150 at Changi Airport. After they requested consular access, the Italian embassy was notified, as required under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
“The provision of consular assistance has no bearing on the investigation process and legal outcome,” Shanmugam said, adding that the police and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had assessed the matter and determined that a 12-month conditional warning and an entry ban were appropriate.
POFMA has previously been used on major international media over reports
Shanmugam, who introduced the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) in 2019, has stated that the law applies to both local and foreign media when false statements of fact are published — particularly those that may mislead the public or misrepresent Singapore’s legal and governance systems.
He is also the minister associated with the highest number of POFMA correction directions, most of which concern matters under the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Law.
Notably, in December 2024, Bloomberg, a major international news agency, was issued a POFMA correction direction over a report on the transparency of Good Class Bungalow (GCB) transactions — a matter outside the Home Affairs portfolio, but which also involved Minister Shanmugam.
The article referenced his S$88 million sale of a GCB to UBS Trustees, acting on behalf of a trust known as the Jasmine Villa Settlement, and noted that the ultimate beneficiary was not publicly identifiable in public filings.
While the report did not accuse Shanmugam of wrongdoing, it raised broader concerns about non-caveated property transactions, the use of trust structures, and transparency in beneficial ownership.
The government countered that the article contained falsehoods, including claims that such transactions are not publicly recorded and that authorities lack oversight over beneficial owners. Officials clarified that Singapore maintains strict disclosure requirements and operates a comprehensive anti-money laundering and property transparency regime.
Subsequently, in February 2025, Ministers Shanmugam and Tan See Leng filed defamation suits against Bloomberg and the article’s author, alleging that the article had harmed their reputations by implying improper conduct in the handling of state property transactions. Legal proceedings are ongoing.
Given this precedent — where a major international outlet received a POFMA correction over reporting that involved the Singapore government and its policies — the clear discrepancy between the AP, AFP, and Reuters reports and the minister’s statement in Parliament places scrutiny on the government’s response.
With three major news agencies now attributing the swimmers’ release to Italian diplomatic intervention — a narrative that directly contradicts the minister’s public position — the absence of a correction direction could leave that version of events unchallenged in the public domain, potentially undermining the government’s position.
As of publication, there has been no official response from the Ministry of Home Affairs regarding the international reports.
The post Will a POFMA correction be issued over reports on Italian swimmers’ release? appeared first on The Online Citizen.
