LSL : "Singapore is not the only one who is legislating on this issue. The French... Germans .... Australians have just done something similar and very draconian. The British is thinking of doing things as well."
(See TOC's country comparative of anti-fake news legislation HERE)
POFMA Clause 2 (C) defines a false statement of fact as one that is false or misleading whether wholly or in part and whether on its own or in the context in which it appears.
Whilst the other quoted countries seek specifically to manage industry and agenda players, POFMA has a dragnet that captures all small time social media participants, from a primary school kid who has learnt how to use computer and internet, to a 90 year old retiree who still remembers how to punch the keyboards. Clearly LSL has committed falsehood under clause 2 (C) since none of the quoted countries' legislation are comparable in specificity and objective. This serves to demonstrate how loosely POFMA has been framed on just one illustrative issue.
Good thing this legislation is not retrospective, otherwise, we have to wonder which Minister, in the words of the Prime Minister's wife, "has the balls" to pofma him.
This atrocious legislation has been perlustrated by many, including foreign industry players and academia, whose concerns have been totally ignored by government. Some even received contemptious rejection publicly. Many thoughtful and concerned Singaporeans who see through this piece of legislation as a poorly concealed mechanism to muzzle criticism going into a general election, have done their job in vain to persuade a stoic government on the shortcomings, and to educate the public on the dangers, of the draft legislation. Rather than addressing issues raised, the government chose to go to great lengths to ridicule various contributors and attack their credentials. On this very important piece of legislation, Singaporeans have been let down by the spectacular absence of voices from local business leaders, the Law Society of Singapore, the judiciary, students' unions, industry workers' unions, and members of parliament from the ruling party.
Singapore business leaders, ensconced in their elitist world of cash machines, has no time for 'freedom of speech' issues even as they hypocritically propagate fanciful faux social responsibility statements. No local business leader will lend their views and wisdom to pressing social issues if it means opposing the objectives of the government.
The purpose of the Law Society as stated in The LegaLProfession Act 38(f), is "to protect and assist the public in Singapore in all matters touching on, or ancillary or incidental to the law."
In many other countries, the bar associations are great bastions of citizens' rights, but in Singapore, it is a little rabbit that never pop it's head out of their security hole. One would have expected some vociferous and in fact confrontational engagements from them with regards to POFMA, but the society was as mute as a fish. Law Society President Gregory Vijayendran arrongantly chest-beat away his inutility with a meek overlay that the society works in confidential consultation with the government. It relays their views to the government and do not publicise the process. It's public knowledge the society has itself been muzzled since the 1980s and has never retrieved it's manhood ever since. Taking a stand against the government landed two ex-presidents in great trouble in the past, one of whom had to go into self-exile. Their business is solely to make money from the public, simple as that.
Has there been any views from our Supreme Court? Absolute zero. Here is a legislation that make Ministers the arbiters of truth. It effectively transfers judiciary powers to the executive, and the highest judiciary office in the island is SILENT. A fundamentally flawed legislation allows for the usurpation of judiciary powers by cabinet ministers, and the Supreme Court is OK with it. It is a repeat of the last presidential election fiasco. The Constitution 93 (A) (1) states the SC has jurisdiction to determine questions as to validity of Presidential election. Its non-action was acquiescence to the ridiculous notion that a Muslim Indian is a Malay. The script thus allowed PAP MP Mdm Halimah Ya'acob (then House Speaker) to step down and stand as a candidate in the previous special election of a Malay president.
The voice of youth in Singapore is dead. University student unions are obsolete. Youthful idealism that champions peace, equality, freedom and social injustices, and the audacity to challenge the status quo, is the missing ingredient in Singapore's attempt to move towards an advanced society. The consequence is new generations of academically bright but robotic citizens. A paranoid Lee Kuan Yew government understood the power of student unions well and at the slightest sign of emerging industrial or political activism, it would be nipped in the bud. This happened in 1975 with the Tan Wah Piow case. Tan, as President of the Singapore Student's Union, championed some marine workers union in an industrial dispute. He was quickly disposed off in a rioting charge which Tan claimed was a frame up. He was nowhere near the vicinity of the rioting, and the chief prosecution witness Phey Yew Kok (an union chairman) who, decades later, was himself convicted of graft and instigator of union members to lie, attesting to Tan's claim of the proclivity of the witness to lying. Students had since then, learnt to toe government lines.
Where have all industrial unionists gone? Gone to graveyards everyone. Who cannot remember the day Lee Kuan Yew thumbed the tables at the meeting with the SIA Pilots Union back in 1980. Unions here are non-confrontational, which is not necessarily bad. But none has the temerity to stand up and be counted on a social issue that is not in line with government thinking.
Sleeping cells are agents placed in a target country or organization not to undertake any immediate mission but to act as a potential asset to be activated when required. Oppressive policies that capture institutions are somewhat similar in the sense that they are preparations for contingency moments. Agencies or institutions with the latent energy for mobilising social change or resistance to government initiatives, are kept in check. As a younger man, I watched the G1 leadership carry the cudgels as they imposed tough love and discipline on a new country. Draconian policies were required in a new country given statehood. Lee Kuan Yew and other founder fathers were a different brand of leaders. Their tough policies worked and accepted because the leadership was trusted and they were driven by national interests. Even as a young man then, I was poignantly aware that Lee Kuan Yew's benign dictatorial brand, even though it was advancing the country's development very successfully, was embedding policies that captured democratic institutions. This laid the foundation of our death trap when a rogue leadership takes over. All evidence point to the reality that we are living under a leadership tipping into roguery now. POFMA is testament that with captive institutions, we are screwed.