I do not speak to journalists. When contacted by Channel News Asia for an article on the Prevention of Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, I ignored them. I see no reason to speak to journalists when I can speak to you directly. Looking at the quality of the article they produced, it was the correct decision.
I knew from the start that the purpose of the article was to drum up support for POFMA. It even has the courtesy to tell you this in the closing remarks:
"Public perception of POFMA is important because it directly influences how effectively the law can achieve its intended purposes.
“If the public perceives POFMA favourably, they will be more likely to believe the corrections instead of the falsehoods."
That CNA chose to reinforce the government position is testimony to the kind of journalism you can expect from the mainstream media.
A true journalist would not be content with repeating the party line. A true journalist would investigate the POFMA'd claims to determine which were true and which were false. A true journalist would examine POFMA itself.
What Is A False Statement of Fact?
In the language of legislation, POFMA is aimed at 'false statements of fact'.
To quote from the Cambridge dictionary, a fact is:
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information
The word false means:
not true or correct
It is quite interesting that the government chooses the complicated term 'false statement of fact' instead of 'falsehood' or 'lie'. What is a 'false statement of fact'? Such a statement is inherently contradictory. Thus, we must assume that there is only possible interpretation:
A false statement of fact is whatever the government says is false.
POFMA therefore gives the government the power to declare what is false.
The Manufacture of Consent
The most vicious, most damaging falsehoods in the history of mankind originates from government.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The industrial and agricultural 'miracles' of the Great Leap Forward. Donald Trump seeking to become a dictator.
In every such case, the government of the day took pains—and continues to take pains—to insist that they are telling the truth and their opponents are liars.
Government is not in the business of truth. Government is in the business of power. Through the exercise of power, it directs citizens and communities to achieve its political goals. To manufacture consent for the exercise of power, it produces propaganda.
Would any government that resorts to propaganda immediately turn around and call itself a liar? Of course not. But if it gives itself the ability to decide what its true and what is false? Then it has a potent tool to shape how people view those who break from the narrative.
This is the essence of a fake news law: the power to defend the narrative in the guise of fighting falsehoods.
In Communist Russia and China, everyone knows the government lies. All they had to do was visit a grocery store, a farm or factory to see the truth of 'agricultural abundance' and 'industrial revolution'. Communist officials throughout every level of government knew their subordinates massaged the numbers to make themselves and the Party look good. The leaders repeat the lies in public to justify their stranglehold on power. Thus the lie becomes hardcoded into the fabric of society.
The only crime was pointing this out in public.
With a fake news law, you are required to disbelieve the evidence of your eyes. You are required to reject the message of the designated liar. You are required to watch the world burn down around you and declare that everything is fine. And if you do not, then have you chosen to believe the lie and so you yourself are no longer credible.
The point of a fake news law is not to hold the liars to account. If it were, it would have provisions for lies propagated by the Establishment. The point of a fake news law is to create true believers by making people feel good about themselves and the government for rejecting everyone who disagrees with the narrative, and to break those who dissent.
POFMA in particular humiliates the dissident, forcing him to publicly denounce his views by saying his content contains 'false statements of fact'. It is similar to a communist struggle session, in which the designated victim is forced to condemn himself while everyone in his social circles criticises him. CNA says that one POFMA'd person 'preferred not to comment in order to "put this traumatic experience" behind him'. This quote reveals the impact of POFMA on an ordinary person—and further buttresses the agenda of the article.
Government should never have the power to decide the truth, because government always has the power to wield the lie. Unlike a normal citizen or an organisation, a government has the power to spread the lie and possesses the monopoly on violence to enforce it. Any falsehood from the government is thus exponentially more dangerous than any falsehood uttered by a person or political party.
It doesn't matter how enlightened the current government is. What matters is what happens when your ideological opponents take power. They will use the machinery of state against you, including the power to brand you a liar. As such, no government must ever hold such power.
And if you are assured that your opponents will never, ever take power—you should take a good, hard look at what kind of society you live in.
The Burden of Truth
POFMA contains provisions for appeals:
A person who does not agree will first have to comply, and then appeal against the order. He will have to apply to the minister who issued the order, and if unsuccessful, file an appeal in court.
A minister has to make a decision within two working days of receiving an application against his direction.
In all, a person disputing the decision will have the opportunity to have the case heard in High Court as early as nine working days after initiating the challenge.
Sylvia Lim of the Workers' Party called it an onerous process:
“This is potentially very onerous due to information asymmetry between the Government and individuals," she said...
...
Ms Lim added that the grounds for appeal were “very tightly scoped”.
She noted that the courts could only set aside a minister’s direction on three grounds: If the subject statement is not a statement of fact, or is a true statement of fact; if the individual did not communicate the subject statement in Singapore; and if it is not technically possible to comply with the direction.
“The High Court cannot inquire into the merits of the decision, whether in the courts’ view the decision should have been made in that way,” she added.
“The court, for example, cannot ask important questions such as is the minister overreacting, did the directions impose obligations on the communicator which are excessively onerous and harsh, or does the public interest require the direction to be issued.”
To quote other members of the Workers' Party:
WP Non-Constituency MP Dennis Tan agreed, saying: “Surely the minister and Government, as the aggrieved party, must always bear the burden of proof for any direction or order under POFMA."
...
Making a similar point, former WP chief Low Thia Khiang described the appeal process as “do it first then complain later” and one that leaves individuals with “no room … to disagree”.
“If the minister decides that you have to take it down, then you take it down (before going to the court),” the veteran opposition member said in an exchange with People’s Action Party MP Gan Thiam Poh in Mandarin.
“This circumstance means do it first then complain later. He has been chopped and he has already died. How can he complain?” added Mr Low.
While a person who's been POFMA'd need not take down his post, the principle Low Thia Khiang describes remains the same.
A person who receives a POFMA order must first denounce himself before he can challenge it. Then, having admitted his alleged guilt to the satisfaction of the State and public, he must then prove his innocence to the court, at his own expense.
Even if, by some miracle, the court chooses to strike down the order, the damage has already been done. You had to bear the scarlet letter. The news has reported you a liar. Your friends and family, law abiding persons one and all, had roundly criticised you. You had to spend your own time, money and energy to take the case to court. The longer it took to correct the record, the greater the cross you had to bear.
Will the government go out of its own way to make amends? Or must you sue the government minister who issued the order for damages? If so, it will take a very brave lawyer to take on such a case.
The government may argue that it is necessary to act swiftly and limit the damage of fake news by issuing orders without waiting for a court ruling. I will point out that no one person and no one organisation in this country wields so much influence that it can spark a national emergency by publishing a falsehood. What damage such a statement may inflict can be remediated simply by the government issuing a press release and a fact check, like what governments elsewhere in the world already do. The government claims we live in a 'high-trust society'. Why can't it trust the people to tell the difference between the true and the false? Why does it need the teeth of POFMA?
The spokesperson of the Ministry of Law did not comment on the appeals process, instead issuing this statement:
"The fact that POFMA orders are generally not challenged makes it clear that the people who have been issued with the orders knew that they were putting out falsehoods in the first place.
"The process for issuing POFMA orders is rigorous. If the case is not clear, we do not proceed."
It is truly fascinating that CNA has decided not to investigate the appeals process, the order issuance process, or even to comment on the spokesperson's insinuations. Furthermore, CNA adds:
CNA TODAY has reached out to several recipients of past POFMA orders to talk about their experiences of being "Pofma'd", a colloquial expression that has sprung up in recent years that means receiving a POFMA correction notice.
All those contacted declined to comment or did not respond to queries.
I do not know which persons CNA contacted. I do know that CNA did not contact the highest-profile personalities who received multiple POFMA orders, including Terry Xu of The Online Citizen and Kenneth Jeyaratnam of the Reform Party, through a conversation with Terry.
As for myself, my conscience is clear. I answer to a Power greater than any power on Earth. I have stood before him with my head held high and a brightness in my heart.
Nothing the State says can ever change that.
In a world ruled by demons and their worshippers, you must resist.