[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – Historian Thum Ping Tjin has been asked to post corrections to a video claiming that Singapore’s fake news law makes all criticism of the government illegal.
Describing this claim and several others as false and misleading, the Office of Protection against Online Misrepresentations and the Manipulation Act (Pofma) issued correction instructions for Dr. Thum and the New Naratif on Wednesday (May 13), a website that he founded.
“Contrary to what Mr. Thum suggests, people are free to criticize and disagree with the Government,” the Government said on its fact-checking website.
Dr. Thum had posted the video on New Naratif’s YouTube channel on May 8, as part of his online video series The Show with PJ Thum, in which he analyzes and criticizes government policies and actions.
Under the direction of correction, initiated by Law Minister K. Shanmugam, the historian must execute a correction notice along with the video linking to the events.
The Law Ministry said in a statement that the video itself will remain fully accessible to the public.
“Therefore, members of the public will be able to watch the video, read the correction notice and clarifications, and come to their own conclusions,” he said.
In his video, Dr. Thum had questioned the government’s true reason for Pofma.
He argued that the law exists to silence critics and opposition, and it is so radical that “even if a part is found to be incorrect or misleading, the entire statement can be considered false.”
For example, omitting a fact can make a statement misleading and since it was “impossible to include every fact about anything in the statement … every statement can be considered false in some way”.
The Government said that it was not true that a complete statement would automatically be considered false, because part of it is false. He added that the legal criteria for establishing the falsity of a statement have been developed by the courts for centuries.
The Government also reiterated that Pofma does not apply to opinions.
He added that Dr. Thum is clearly aware of Pofma’s scope, as he had ignored suggestions that his own criticism would be subject to the law, saying that it applies only to “false statements of fact.”
Despite this, he had continued to make misleading statements about the law, the government said, adding: “Therefore, his statements, which Pofma can be used with respect to all statements, are completely cynical, and he obviously knows he is not. Are true. “
Other claims by Dr. Thum that Factually’s website highlighted were: Pofma makes all criticism of the Government illegal; there is no legal recourse for courts to revoke a Pofma address if it is an abuse of powers under Pofma; and the ministers of the ruling Popular Action Party have the last word on the truth.
To these, the Government said that Pofma does not cover the criticisms that are opinions and those that are based on real events.
“It is false (and absurd) to say that Pofma makes all criticism of the government illegal. Before and after Pofma’s entry into force, there have been regular criticisms of the Government (including Mr. Thum). They have not been the object of Pofma, ”he said.
He added that the courts have judicial supervision of the exercise of powers under Pofma, and as such it is false to affirm that Pofma “means that the truth will be what the party says it is.”
He also noted that the orders under Pofma are made by the Government, although Dr. Thum had referred to “party”.
Another claim he made in the video was that the law had been used against the “statistical data interpretation” of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP).
The Government said: “This is also false. The problem was not about the interpretation of the statistics. The SDP had made a direct and false statement. “
The SDP had failed in its attempt by the court to reverse the correction instructions it received in December last year due to claims that an increasing proportion of Singapore’s PMET was shrinking. Statistics from the Ministry of Human Resources had shown otherwise.
Citing this, the Government said the High Court had found that there was no basis for the instructions to be set aside because the SDP had made false statements of fact.
The government also said that Pofma has been used to deal with falsehoods that have suggested, among other things, that the government is mismanaging public funds and favoring foreigners over locals, which can erode confidence in public institutions and harm society.
He added that the law was also used against falsehoods related to Covid-19, and had allowed such fabrications to be quickly corrected.
Furthermore, referring to Dr. Thum’s claim that “previous PAP governments have spread misinformation to silence critics, as in Operation Spectrum,” the 1987 crackdown on an alleged Marxist conspiracy to overthrow the government, the Government said: “These are their opinions (and therefore not subject to a Pofma leadership). Similar claims have been refuted elsewhere.”
[ad_2]
