COMPARISONS WITH POFMA
Mr Singh on Wednesday told the House that the Workers’ Party (WP) supports the Bill’s implementation if it focuses on targeting scams and offences that cause financial and other harm.
But he also highlighted the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), which WP did not support, as it concerned online content.
He noted that a correction direction was issued to Asia Sentinel, a California-registered publication, over a May 24 article that contained several falsehoods. Correction notices were to be situated at the top of the article and the top of the main page of the website.
When Asia Sentinel did not fully comply, MCI said on Jun 2 that internet access service providers would be ordered to block the site for end-users in Singapore and the access blocking orders would only be cancelled if the publication subsequently complied with the “full requirements” of the correction direction.
Mr Singh found it “draconian” to expect a news website to place a correction direction at the top of the main page of the website. It “should be sufficient”, he said, for the correction notice to be at the top of the article in question if the government’s concern is that Singaporeans can read the government’s point of view.
“Surely that smacks of the government wanting to punish the publishers of the website rather than merely wanting to correct falsehoods in a specific article,” he added.
“The Singapore government must have many tools at its disposal to ensure that its viewpoint is available to Singaporeans. Is it really in the best interest of Singapore citizens that the government blocks not only an article the government deems false, but an entire publication?”
Responding to Mr Singh’s views, Mrs Teo said it was “not quite a correct characterisation” to say “the government decides what is truth” under POFMA.
“Mr Singh knows very well that POFMA deals with false statements of fact. These false statements of facts can be proven. There has to be a basis for making those allegations,” she said.
People are free to continue to make opinions, she added. “But if you say something that is factually incorrect, it is carried online, it can go very far and it has public interest, then that’s where POFMA could be considered.”
While Mrs Teo did not address the Asia Sentinel case, she noted that the vast majority of POFMA directions have been fully complied with and the original content remains fully accessible.
Mr Singh said the Asia Sentinel article and website are “no longer accessible by computers and smartphones with Singapore IP addresses”.
However, checks by CNA on Wednesday afternoon revealed that both the website and article could still be accessed. There was a correction notice at the top of the article in question, as well as on the main page under a sidebar titled Editor’s Notes.