THE issue of POFMA enforcement is heating up again in Singapore, the latest spat involving opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and the People's Action Party (PAP) led government over differing interpretations of employment issues.
SDP asked the authorities to retract the correction directions that were issued last month about three statements the party made last year on its website and Facebook in June, November and December.
According to Channelnewsasia, SDP alleged the Manpower Ministry as “abusing POFMA for political and partisan purposes to stymie legitimate criticism of the PAP's foreign PMET (professionals, managers, executives and technician) policy”.
POFMA refers to the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act that was passed by Parliament last year to combat fake news.
The Onlinecitizen (TOC) portal quoted SDP as further saying: “The problem lies with the fact that Minister of Manpower (MOM) had accused the SDP of making statements that we did not make or cited different sets of data which is then used to accuse the SDP’s post as false.
“MOM substituted our word 'unemployment' in our post to 'retrenchment' and then accused us of posting a falsehood. This is clearly an abuse of the law.”
The MOM claimed that the graphical illustration depicting plunging local PMET employment is wrong and pointed to its Comprehensive Labour Force Survey which showed a steady rise of local PMETs employment since 2015.
Meanwhile, SDP posting linked to an article on its website was published on June 8 titled, “SDP Population Policy: Hire S’poreans First, Retrench S’poreans last”.
MOM claims that this statement is also wrong as there is no rising trend of local PMET retrenchments when the number of local PMETs retrenched in 2018 was the lowest since 2014.
Taking into account all local PMET employees, the number of retrenched local PMETs has also declined since 2015 and added that the Singapore economy is continuing to create jobs despite the economic headwinds.
It stressed that local PMET employment has consistently increased and there is no rising trend of retrenchment, amongst PMETs or otherwise. It described SDP as making false and misleading statements to stoke fear and anxiety among local PMETs.
SDP, however, said that job uncertainty and retrenchment faced by Singaporeans is real.
“If POFMA is to have legitimate authority going forward, then (Minister of Manpower, Josuphine) Teo must apologise to the SDP. Accusing a party of making “false statements of fact” is a serious matter and should be done only with the highest of standards and irrefutable evidence.”
"Under such circumstances, we call on the Minister to not only retract the Correction Directions but also issue an immediate, unambiguous and public apology to the SDP and undertake not to make such similar acts in future, failing which we will be obliged to pursue the matter in a court of law,” SDP said.
Nevertheless, SDP complied with the orders by posting the correction notices, but also added that further statements will be made on Facebook and its website to make its case but also would apply to cancel the correction directions.
In another development recently, Singaporean diplomats have been defending POFMA by challenging international media outlets deemed to be publishing misleading claims. Bloomberg called it a global offensive to defend the law.
Foo Chi Hsia, Singapore’s High Commissioner to the UK wrote to the Economist in a Dec 21 letter to the editor that POFMA “should be looked at in the same context as our belief in the right of reply, which in our view enhances rather than reduces the quality of public discourse”.
Early December, Singapore’s ambassador to the US, Ashok Kumar Mirpuri, disagreed on a Washington Post story who cited critics as saying POFMA could have a “chilling effect on online free expression”.
He criticised Phil Robertson, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Asia division, said to be the expert mentioned in the story.
Some days later, Bernard Toh, director of the Ministry of Communications and Information’s information policy division, accused Fred Ryan, the newspaper’s publisher, of “perpetuating false allegations”, said local media.