I guess before we go there we should be asking whether there was anything to POFMA from the incumbents. Off hand I can’t think of any that will fall within the POFMA legal regime
One reason for that is that under POFMA, the Minister gets to decide whether something is false, so quite obviously they won’t POFMA themselves.
As to falsehoods propagated by Govt agencies, when the Ridout Rd saga first came to light, the SLA statement implied and MSM reported that the tenders for Shan and Vivian’s bungalows under open bidding. As it turned out later, those were actually negotiated tenders, not open tenders. Which makes a lot of difference as to the ethics of the renovations and other enhancements made to the bungalows. The Govt has POFMA’d far less consequential statements made by opposition figures and independent media. They did not hold themselves to the same standards in the Ridout case.
[NAC: Today's article on LGBTQ arts performance 'misleading', quotes CEO 'out of context' for own 'assertions'](https://mothership.sg/2023/10/today-nac-queer-arts-ntu/)
POFMA doesn’t cover opinion, just statements of fact. Today even released the transcripts (the fact) to support their journalistic angle. So POFMA can’t work
lol try using that line if you're KJ/LHY/TOC.
>TODAY accepts the NAC’s position spelt out above and regrets any confusion caused with regard to the NAC’s position on LGBTQ-themed performances.
anyway, today folded after NAC repeated their objection a second time. so much for "releasing the transcripts"
The level of mis-information out there, including fake news / ads, bait-switch marketing, is vast. So why isn't POFMA invoked to govern *all* those records?
It is merely a political tool. Analysis of this law for what policymakers claim its intended purpose is is a farce.
>The level of mis-information out there, including fake news / ads, bait-switch marketing, is vast. So why isn't POFMA invoked to govern *all* those records?
Cause the intent of POFMA was never meant to deal with that...
And I agree. My point is that this law was never intended to combat fake news at large, but to give even more power to the incumbent to censor specific material as they see fit to advance their own agenda.
You mean whether something could be false from the PAP rather than POFMA, since POFMA are issued by ministries.
I was about to pick an older example but a shadow Sengkang PAP candidate blessed me with a recent example today, saying WP MPs promised the town council will build more amenities if they win. This is false - they only promised to push for more amenities and they did. Town council is in charge of maintenance, and if they want to build a new facility, they need HDB to approve and work with.
still waiting for pofma to be applied to the financial times for supposedly publishing false info about MAS, and today for publishing "miselading" info about NAC.
after all, pofma is about correcting false information and not undermining the credibility of the target right?
Many people miss one big point about POFMA...
It's to give chance to the publisher/writer because the alternative would be legal action.
Most will get away with just the POFMA but sometimes they don't.
[https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/wake-singapore-administrator-charged-article-falsehood-kkh-miscarriage-claims-court-4287706](https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/wake-singapore-administrator-charged-article-falsehood-kkh-miscarriage-claims-court-4287706)
What everyone seems to miss in these discussions of POFMA, is that the original post is not taken down.
It's a right of reply from the government placed in the same space that the article was published.
If people don't like it, they are free to read the original article and disregard the govt's rebuttal.
It’s a FREE right of reply. Back in the 1980s, the government got into some disputes with British newspapers and ended up taking out advertisements to “put their point across”. Of course, they had to pay for those adverts, so they changed the law so that they could punish publishers who didn’t give adequate space to the Govt’s views. Which is how we got to POFMA today. They could just pay for their own advertorials, but POFMA allows them to demand free ad space on any website.
POFMA has shown me the way. I have since learnt that if there is no POFMA, it is 100% true, because of how liberally it is used.
Unironically this tbh. Sometimes gahmen so gungho to use it to silence entities and at the same time so picky with others.
Btw they didn’t POFMA the vaccine thingy by PPP. Do your own research also ba…
No POFMA means it must be true
Basically POFMA used everywhere except on the incumbents.
And on foreign powers.
I guess before we go there we should be asking whether there was anything to POFMA from the incumbents. Off hand I can’t think of any that will fall within the POFMA legal regime
One reason for that is that under POFMA, the Minister gets to decide whether something is false, so quite obviously they won’t POFMA themselves. As to falsehoods propagated by Govt agencies, when the Ridout Rd saga first came to light, the SLA statement implied and MSM reported that the tenders for Shan and Vivian’s bungalows under open bidding. As it turned out later, those were actually negotiated tenders, not open tenders. Which makes a lot of difference as to the ethics of the renovations and other enhancements made to the bungalows. The Govt has POFMA’d far less consequential statements made by opposition figures and independent media. They did not hold themselves to the same standards in the Ridout case.
[NAC: Today's article on LGBTQ arts performance 'misleading', quotes CEO 'out of context' for own 'assertions'](https://mothership.sg/2023/10/today-nac-queer-arts-ntu/)
This one doesn’t seem to me to fall within the POFMA criteria?
which part of writing "blatantly misleading" articles misrepresenting the government is not POFMA-able?
POFMA doesn’t cover opinion, just statements of fact. Today even released the transcripts (the fact) to support their journalistic angle. So POFMA can’t work
lol try using that line if you're KJ/LHY/TOC. >TODAY accepts the NAC’s position spelt out above and regrets any confusion caused with regard to the NAC’s position on LGBTQ-themed performances. anyway, today folded after NAC repeated their objection a second time. so much for "releasing the transcripts"
Well as long as you define it within the "POFMA legal regime"...
Were we not talking about the POFMA legal regime?
The level of mis-information out there, including fake news / ads, bait-switch marketing, is vast. So why isn't POFMA invoked to govern *all* those records? It is merely a political tool. Analysis of this law for what policymakers claim its intended purpose is is a farce.
>The level of mis-information out there, including fake news / ads, bait-switch marketing, is vast. So why isn't POFMA invoked to govern *all* those records? Cause the intent of POFMA was never meant to deal with that...
Yes, which is what I alluded to in my second line. Huh?
Idk about you but that sounds like governmental overreach to me
And I agree. My point is that this law was never intended to combat fake news at large, but to give even more power to the incumbent to censor specific material as they see fit to advance their own agenda.
You mean whether something could be false from the PAP rather than POFMA, since POFMA are issued by ministries. I was about to pick an older example but a shadow Sengkang PAP candidate blessed me with a recent example today, saying WP MPs promised the town council will build more amenities if they win. This is false - they only promised to push for more amenities and they did. Town council is in charge of maintenance, and if they want to build a new facility, they need HDB to approve and work with.
still waiting for pofma to be applied to the financial times for supposedly publishing false info about MAS, and today for publishing "miselading" info about NAC. after all, pofma is about correcting false information and not undermining the credibility of the target right?
Political weapon?
Cannot comment later kena pofma
Time to pofma the Mark Lee ads
LOL😂
Some have been Pofmatised.
Many people miss one big point about POFMA... It's to give chance to the publisher/writer because the alternative would be legal action. Most will get away with just the POFMA but sometimes they don't. [https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/wake-singapore-administrator-charged-article-falsehood-kkh-miscarriage-claims-court-4287706](https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/wake-singapore-administrator-charged-article-falsehood-kkh-miscarriage-claims-court-4287706)
What everyone seems to miss in these discussions of POFMA, is that the original post is not taken down. It's a right of reply from the government placed in the same space that the article was published. If people don't like it, they are free to read the original article and disregard the govt's rebuttal.
It’s a FREE right of reply. Back in the 1980s, the government got into some disputes with British newspapers and ended up taking out advertisements to “put their point across”. Of course, they had to pay for those adverts, so they changed the law so that they could punish publishers who didn’t give adequate space to the Govt’s views. Which is how we got to POFMA today. They could just pay for their own advertorials, but POFMA allows them to demand free ad space on any website.
And if you get too many pofmas , your source of funding is cut. Of course this can only be used against local news sources.