I received The Online Citizen post below from a Singaporean, accompanied only by the letters WTF—and I must admit, when I read it, the same words came to mind.
Here was The Online Citizen, Bloomberg, The Edge and The Independent being forced to declare that a post, dated 22 November 2024, communicated a "false statement of fact." All this, while the Government continues to insist that a POFMA does not compel the recipient to adopt its position or even to remove the original post.
Well, that’s quite the distinction, isn’t it? Not forced to remove—just coerced admission of guilt for communicating false statements of fact, with the wording provided by the Government!
It’s a little like being handed a script and told, “Say these words, but don’t worry, you’re still free to think what you like.”
WTF, indeed.
Truth by Decree
POFMA doesn’t request recipients to clarify their statements; it demands compliance with the Government’s version of the truth. It requires the author to admit guilt for “communicating false statements of fact.” But who determines what qualifies as false? Not an impartial, independent third party, but the Government itself. With control over the local mainstream media, the Government could easily publish daily rebuttals and allow citizens to decide for themselves which version of events they find credible.
As if that weren’t concerning enough, the takeaway from Kirsten Han's post above, is that the POFMA Office appears to be asking social media companies to restrict the visibility of posts it claims contain "false information," ensuring such content reaches fewer people in Singapore. This raises serious questions about fairness and due process—it feels disturbingly similar to being presumed guilty without the safeguard of an impartial hearing or independent trial. Moreover, it’s a tool that could easily be wielded to favour the government in the lead-up to an election!
Whoever controls the media, controls the mind.
~ Jim Morrison
Truth Cannot Be Forced and Platitudes Won’t Restore Trust
No establishment should compel people to believe only its version of the truth, no matter how many platitudes it offers or how much power it wields. Empty slogans about transparency and accountability mean little without action to back them up. Trust isn’t built through decrees, censorship, or vague assurances—it is earned through independent investigations, transparency, honest answers, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable realities.
It Quacks and Walks like a Duck but Believe Us it’s a Frog.
Whether it’s DBS through lawyers publicly claiming that there is nothing to see here, it's just a whistleblower who had acted out of malice, POFMA deciding what qualifies as a “falsehood,” or a wealthy, well-connected individual spending heavily to bury the truth, the message is clear: in Singapore, you’re expected to blindly accept what the authorities say—even if without proof, and with “Ownself Check Ownself” replacing independent investigations.
This isn’t just a slippery slope—it’s a freefall into a system where truth is whatever those in power decree it to be. For most, challenging this narrative is simply not an option; they lack the financial resources or the ability to fight POFMA in court. Even those who have both, might see the futility of taking on a government-backed adversary in a tightly controlled legal system. The result? Forced capitulation to the government’s version of the truth—regardless of how far it might stray from reality.
This risks POFMA becoming an alarming abuse of power—a tool weaponized to silence dissent, persecute opponents, and shield the well-connected from any meaningful scrutiny. It erodes trust, stifles accountability, and paves the way for unchecked authority cloaked in the guise of order.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.
Journalism in the Crosshairs
I believe that The Online Citizen is one of the few independent, investigative outlets run by a local who is willing and able to tackle the issues that the mainstream press avoids like the plague. Whether the mainstream media toes the line to protect their well-funded interests—such as up to $180 million annually in government support—remains a topic of much debate. What is clear, is that The Online Citizen's fearless reporting might explain why it is frequently targeted with POFMAs and why its editor Terry Xu has faced legal action and is now operating out of Taiwan.
You don't need to love him, but journalists like Terry Xu play a crucial role in a functioning democracy. It is not uncommon in Australia and other countries to see scandals exposed by journalists, recent Australian examples being scandals involving powerful figures within PwC and Mineral Resources. Contrary to recent claims by certain ignoramuses attempting to further indoctrinate the public in Singapore, investigative journalists are not sensationalists or the bogeymen; they are truth-seekers, who have the courage to hold the powerful accountable.
Take the example of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the investigative journalists from The Washington Post who uncovered the Watergate scandal. Their meticulous reporting not only exposed the extent of President Richard Nixon's cover-up but also played a pivotal role in driving accountability at the highest levels of power. It was their work that ultimately led to Nixon’s resignation in 1974—a moment in history that reminds us of the power of fearless journalism to safeguard democracy. And who can forget Clare Rewcastle Brown, who was instrumental in exposing Malaysia's 1MDB scandal.
Imagine what Singapore could achieve if it embraced genuine investigative journalism, free from government influence and institutional bias. Without such independent oversight, there’s a real danger of fostering an environment where misconduct goes unchallenged, protected by layers of privilege and fear, leaving silence in its wake.
Moulding the Truth
The enforcement of 'truth' whether by POFMA, intimidation, or financial incentive, is not merely leading to a slippery slope; it is a direct assault on transparency, accountability, and public trust. Such practices set a chilling precedent—one where questioning authority becomes a punishable act, and the powerful are free to dictate or buy what constitutes their truth. If this continues unchecked, Singaporeans risk living in a society where truth is no longer discovered, but decided, and where justice is defined not by fairness, but by those with the power and wealth to shape it.
Are we there yet?
-------------------
"Terry Xu, Chief Editor of The Online Citizen, has rejected LODs from Ministers Tan See Leng and K. Shanmugam. He asserts that the article in question raises legitimate concerns about transparency in Singapore’s GCB market and views the LODs as attempts to suppress independent journalism."
"In the spirit of transparency, I will publish the legal correspondence sent by the ministers’ lawyers so the public can evaluate the claims for themselves. I believe that openness and accountability are the best defence against intimidation.
I remain steadfast in my commitment to independent journalism, truth, and public accountability.
Xu Yuanchen (Terry Xu)Chief Editor, The Online Citizen" extracts
Comments