SEPTEMBER 20 — The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma) is perhaps the most controversial piece of legislation passed by Singapore’s parliament in recent times.
Becoming law in October 2019, the statute is intended to allow authorities in general and ministers and parliament in particular to combat fake news and misinformation online.
When authorities identify a piece of false or misleading news via Pofma, they can instruct the person/website originating the news to issue a correction — placing a correction notice typically on the same page as the original article.
They can also ask for the original article to be removed. Failure to comply with a Pofma order can entail a fine and even imprisonment.
Receiving multiple Pofma notices can lead to an outlet being designated a “declared online location” which can lead to a loss of funding.
Criticism of Pofma has stemmed from the fact that Singapore already has stringent libel and defamation laws and therefore there is no need for additional Pofma legislation.
Questions have also been raised as to why ministers play such a key role in the Pofma mechanism.
There has also been debate on the burden of proof. Who should be responsible for proving an article or statement is true or false? Should the government on raising a Pofma have to provide evidence or should the party publishing the information be responsible for defending their claims?
While this may seem like semantics, it actually makes a considerable difference.
In some cases, the public and journalists may only have access to partial information or have to rely on secondhand information from sources.
For example, X claims that there has been a case of misappropriation of funds in this or that ministry/department. Given that it is very difficult for journalists to actually extract financial information from ministries, how can they obtain conclusive proof?
Journalists anywhere in the world have to rely to an extent on leaks and whistleblowers — and use this information to question authorities.
These issues are currently being debated in court and two prominent Pofma appeals are currently being heard.
Singapore’s Opposition SDP is appealing a Pofma it received with regard to statements it made on the share of foreign workers in Singapore vs the number of local professionals in employment.
News outlet The Online Citizen is contesting a Pofma it received for publishing a report from a Malaysian non-governmental organisation which claimed that the methods being used to execute prisoners in Singapore’s Changi Prison are illegal.
Interestingly on the matter of the burden of proof, judges hearing the two cases seem to have ruled in opposite directions.
Justice Ang Cheng Hock, hearing the SDP case, appears to have ruled that the minister bears the burden of proof while Justice Belinda Ang, hearing The Online Citizen’s case, found that the statement maker is chiefly responsible for proving their fact/statement is true.
The government side has consistently argued that it is coherent for the burden of proof to fall on the statement maker but things aren’t always black and white.
Sometimes information and events move fast and reporters face tight deadlines. There will always be shades of grey and it is challenging for courts and ministers to wade into these matters.
For now, the court has reserved judgement but the debate regarding Pofma is bound to continue.
*This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
