The Political Weaponisation of the POFMA ‘Fake News’ Law in Singapore

The final speaker in this ANZCA 2023 session is Howard Lee, whose focus is on truth in Singapore’s online mediascape. He begins by highlighting the independent media outlet The Online Citizen Asia and the current affairs magazine Jom, who have had various run-ins with the Lee family who have been in control of Singaporean politics for several years.

One example is the saga over former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s house, which was destined for demolition but was saved by one of his sons, who became the current Prime Minister; this resulted in an unusual spat between the siblings, coverage of which in turn attracted the ire of (and a lawsuit from) the Prime Minister.

The Online Citizen was then also subjected to restrictions under the POFMA law, which ostensibly polices the publication of falsehoods in the media – yet what is true and false is decided solely by government ministers, and being POFMAed means that media operators can no longer receive financial or material benefits. POFMA thus produces considerable chilling effects for independent media.

This means that ‘truth’ in Singapore is now a non-negotiable matter, affirmed from a position of full knowledge as held by government ministers; POFMA is a tool to assert legal rights and domination over contentious truths. This is clearly at odds with the ‘post-truth’ understanding of mis- and disinformation as a matter of contention, where a conception of absolute and unassailable truth is challenged by the deliberate misrepresentation and weaponisation of out-of-context information.

Through POFMA, these absolutist extremes of right vs. wrong, true vs. false, harmful vs. benign also pervade legal discourses; this kind of legal solution to address ‘fake news’ is fundamentally inadequate and even dangerous as it enables such laws to be weaponised by the powerful against their opponents in politics and the media. It encourages deliberate offence-taking, and removes any incentive to find common ground and address social and political inequalities; it also opens the door for future governments to abuse the law even further for their political ends.

Any attempts to implement similar approaches elsewhere in the world should be seen very critically, and resisted: there is a need for clear definitions of truth and falsehood, fact and opinion, and real harm resulting from them; for a strict limitation of jurisdiction to avoid the political operationalisation and abuse of such laws; and for strong institutions that address ‘fake news’, including strong public service broadcasters and fact-checkers.