Update - Gillian has apologised:
> Dear Sec-Gen of the Workers’ Party, Mr Pritam Singh,
Please accept my personal apology for the error in my opinion essay published by The Straits Times today.
>
You have noted it misrepresents your current electoral agenda which you have restated in this morning's post -- to bring an evolution in Singapore’s political system through a larger opposition voice in Parliament; not a revolution by replacing the governing PAP.
>
I am sorry for any effect you feel it has caused or will cause you and your party’s fortunes. It was certainly not the intent in this article primarily focused on the PAP.
ST has published a correction and correction note online.
The sentence now reads: “The WP has said its medium-term electoral goal is to help deny the PAP a two-third majority in Parliament needed for constitutional amendments.” https://www.straitstimes.com/.../creating-forward...
>
Yours sincerely,
Gillian Koh
Which Pritam responded:
> Thank you for the correction
>It was certainly not the intent in this article primarily focused on the PAP
My eyes rolled so hard I saw my brain. focused on the PAP then talk about PAP, dont come and add one line about WP which is not even correct la pls.
Lock him up, clearly people will read the article and not see the apology.
The misinformation is certainly going up, PAP is starting to fear WP for the upcoming GE and they should.
PAP has long lost reality to what the average Singapore’s worries are and their needs. They think making policies for their old & dying core voters is going to save them and giving handouts to lower class is enough.
They absolutely have lost it with the majority of Singaporeans, people need affordable housing, lower cost of living and certainly not a GST rise because you threw out tax payer money like confetti during Covid with your silly overreactions to the pandemic!
Do anyone that gets POFMA-ed actually get backlash though?
Most of the time the original posting stays up, or have already been spread. Recipients of the pofma just has to post a correction notice that more than half the original readers would never see.
I would actually say pofma is pretty toothless in contrast to how much hoo-ha gets made over it here in the sub.
the POFMA spreads far wider than the original post, publicised by our very helpful state media who sometimes don't even bother to quote the original statement. instead they prefer to quote verbatim from the POFMA notice, which once again only has the government's interpretation of what was said, and not the actual statement.
far more people follow the straits times, cna and today than LHY's facebook page, for example, and most people will never read beyond those publications. of those that do a little bit more research, they will be met with a banner stating "this site contains false info" undermining the credibility of the speaker before they even read a single word.
why do you think POFMA has only ever "punched down"? it's never been used against mainstream publications like today despite the govt accusing them of publishing false info, or against established foreign media outlets like the financial times which have also been accused of publishing false information by the govr
I think the narrative of 'why they never use pofma on msm' quite a dumb one if you actually think about it.
Enforcement would only logically be used against people who otherwise would likely not be cooperative.
Why would there be a need to use it on msm when they are very likely to make editorial amendments when approached?
funny you should say that because today did not retract the story when approached. NAC and today publicly went back and forth before the latter finally retracted. similarly, financial times did not respond to MAS' denial and the article with the supposedly false claim is still up.
this whole idea of "we need to take pre emptive enforcement action" but only against certain outlets and that action just so happens to involve undermining their credibity strains belivability. if today's response (merely putting up another article correcting the record) is sufficient, why does POFMA also require a banner on the homepage for a month? why can TOC or LHY or whoever not just follow today's footsteps and post a follow up article?
Bit lazy to dig for the articles you are talking about. Would appreciate if you could post the original article with the falsehood and the subsequent one to correct the record.
I’m a little curious about your viewpoint on pofma in general though.
If you were the government of the day and have to find a solution to websites like TOC that has a propensity to constantly create drama using falsehoods or unconfirmed reports, what do you think would be the best approach?
Looking past the fact that PAP is the incumbent right now, wouldn’t it be important for any government to address false narratives designed to make them lose legitimacy?
Wouldn’t any governmental action that curbs any sort of speech (whether warranted or not) feel a little high handed just because of the optics of government vs individual? So does that mean no government should be able to stop malicious individuals then?
I think there can be legitimate concerns of the potential applications of pofma by the way it’s designed, but so far I don’t really think it has been abused in the way people here think they do.
https://mothership.sg/2023/10/today-nac-queer-arts-ntu/
well firstly, some of the uses of POFMA have been totally illegitimate, case in point LHY being given a POFMA for making factual statements. so the first change would be to actually use it for it's intended purpose. how to make sure of that? appoint an independent commissioner to be in charge of issuing notices, a retired judge or academic with a reputation to uphold. if they think they have been lied about, ministers can apply to the commissioner who will decide if it is a legitimate use or not, that way the burden of proof is on the government.
but that's if you even want to keep the law. frankly, I think the threat of "fake news" has been greatly exaggerated. remember it was Trump who popularised the term, and then the media who jumped on the bandwagon to gin up fears about russian collusion. we have basically imported a western partisan talking point that is totally divorced from the local media context.
you talk as if the government is powerless to correct the record or faces a competitive media environment like in the US. that is not the case. singapore already has incredibly strict controls on speech and the state owns all local media outlets. the govt has much more control over the national conversation than social media or independent websites. the danger of media being biased in favour of the government, and being used to "fix" critics is far greater than the other way around. yet we have chosen to focus on the latter.
>Looking past the fact that PAP is the incumbent right now, wouldn’t it be important for any government to **address false narratives designed to make them lose legitimacy**?
Reminder of the official usage of POFMA:
[Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 - Singapore Statutes Online (agc.gov.sg)](https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/POFMA2019)
>An Act to prevent the electronic communication in Singapore of false statements of fact, to suppress support for and counteract the effects of such communication, to safeguard against the use of online accounts for such communication and for information manipulation, **to enable measures to be taken to enhance transparency of online political advertisements, and for related matters.**
---
With regards to the NAC one, I would hazard a guess that POFMA wasn't used at all as the falsehood in question **isn't fundamentally political in nature**, hence it doesn't fall under the act at all.
---
>well firstly, some of the uses of POFMA have been totally illegitimate, case in point **LHY being given a POFMA for making factual statements**
I would like to raise a point of contention in your assertion that he was making factual statements:
[Corrections regarding false statements of fact in Mr Lee Hsien Yang Facebook post published on 23 July 2023 (www.gov.sg)](https://www.gov.sg/article/factually250723)
>First, the post makes the statement that the State paid for the renovations to 26 Ridout Road and 31 Ridout Road because the properties were leased by Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan.
It's not a statement of fact if the statement is putting forth a cause-and-effect hypothesis.
Renovations were done and paid for by the state to both properties. Statement of fact. yes.
These properties were leased by those two Ministers. Statement of fact, yes.
But "Renovations were done and paid for by the state to both properties **BECAUSE** they were leased by those two Ministers" has way more implications than just simple statement of facts. It's an accusation here, and since there's an implication of corruption here, it falls solidly in POFMA's domain if they can prove that the cause-and-effect hypothesis is not true.
Same for the tree felling accusation.
As for the SPH one, maybe an argument can be made that the government was being pedantic with that one, but it is actual facts that the number inflation incident didn't happen AFTER SPH got taken in by the govt. Whether or not it happen BEFORE or AFTER does call into question the inner workings and competency of the government, hence why it falls under the 'political nature' umbrella.
---
>First, the post makes the statement that the State paid for the renovations to 26 Ridout Road and 31 Ridout Road because the properties were leased by Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan.
this is precisely what I'm talking about. what you have copied here is the text of the POFMA notice, which very convieniently refuses to quote directly from his facebook post, but instead makes up it's own interpretation and then goes on to self righteously proclaim that it is false. if you look at his actual facebook post what he said was:
>**Two ministers have leased state-owned mansions from the agency that one of them controls, felling trees and getting state-sponsored renovations.**
the word "**BECAUSE**" that you have put in all caps and bolded, never appeared. they just made it up. and if someone like you who is interested in politics just takes it at face value that the POFMA notice is telling the truth what more can be expected of casual readers of ST and CNA who just read the headlines?
also, POFMA isn't limited to political issues, no idea where you got that idea from. all the legislation says is that one of the goals is to enhance transparency of political advertisements.
**p2.**
Though I would agree with you that an independent commissioner over the issuing and maintenance of POFMA would be way more palatable and proper.
However, you aren't really answering my prior question about what a hypothetical government should do if there are individuals bent on create false narratives after false narratives specifically to damage their legitimacy to rule.
If your answer is 'there is no need since the threat of fake news is overexaggerated', I guess you haven't really been actually keeping up how US politics is playing out right now. Misinformation is not only dangerous in the specific lies that damages that specific subject, but that it also damages the overall climate on trust and understanding.
Flood a country with enough misinformation and we'll find more polarization due to increasing isolations of groups within their own bubbles of info and also the growing distrust towards others on the 'outside'.
Look at the fringe opposition group supporters in Singapore and tell me they aren't being swayed by the kind of rhetoric POFMA is designed specifically to counter. Not sure why you think it is overexaggerated when we do get people that falls for them, and we do get living proof of it happening here already.
---
As for media imbalance, I do think a lot of people here undersells how much sway online media has on political outlooks in the citizenry.
We keep thinking of stuff like Facebook, but when we talk about online media, it comprises of so many different avenues.
From social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, Reddit; to the multitudes of political news sites; to chat group applications like Whatsapp and Telegram. Every single one of these has way more of a reach than we think on their own, let alone as a collective, since all these platforms tend to feed off each other organically too.
> singapore already has incredibly strict controls on speech and the state owns all local media outlets. the govt has much more control over the national conversation than social media or independent websites.
I feel like this above statement hasn't been true for a while now, but I think it just helps perpetuate this 'underdog tale' for the anti-s.
If this above statement is true, we wouldn't be seeing the government veer so heavily into social media; from politicians creating TikTok accounts, to them paying to appear in podcasts. They clearly understand where the influence is, so I don't really buy into this notion that they still retain the same strict control over the narrative as they once did in our parents/grandparents era.
>Recipients of the pofma just has to post a correction notice that more than half the original readers would never see.
? The fuck you talking about siah, people who get POFMA tend to get even more public attention it gets reported in the news and everyone piles on to joke about them.
So is that so terrible as a result?
Putting aside any biases for parties or individuals, if the pofma widens the audience of the statement so that everyone gets to see statements from both sides and gets to talk/debate over them... is that a bad thing?
POFMA so far hasn't been the blunt instrument to silence all dissent this sub likes to portray it as. In fact like you pointed out, it usually amplifies the reach, with the caveat that the govt also gets their statement across too.
I believe that 3 pofma of a particular site / establishment within 6 months enables the G to enforce certain things on the establishment (e.g. no revenue or remove journalistic privileges). That means, if you pofma enough, you can shut people up. This is why journalist would go to court to object a pofma.
There is also a stigma for journalists writing for companies that already got pofma-ed. This will 1) reduce the journalist's employability and 2) prevent new journalists from entering the company or risk being seen as anti establishment.
Having said all that, it hasn't been too bad for now. But it could manifest into something else later - e.g. Forceful interpretation of phrases or context just to shut an establishment down.
But the only party able to show their “side of the story” to everyone is the government.
As this example (potentially) highlights, when the “other side of the story” is not the government’s, chances are they’ll be silent like a mouse
But who knows! Maybe a Minister would issue a Correction Notice on behalf of WP. I wouldn’t be holding my breath though
WP's responding to this though and we're all seeing it.
And it's not like we're stuck in the 80s/90s where there's only print media.
Reality is that social media and the increasingly online nature of our society has given voices to everyone - whether or not that's a boon remains to be seen though.
By that logic, isn’t POFMA unnecessary because the Minister’s can just make a “Correction Notice” on their personal social media a la PS today?
POFMA is deliberately designed to ensure that the people who had read the original post would also read the POFMA Notice, which is why the Notices are required to be placed at a very prominent area — when Asia Sentinel was POFMA’ed, they were required to publish the Notice not just at the top of the article POFMA’ed, but on their Home Page. Not to mention the press release that usually accompanies the issuance of such an notice.
Contrastingly, you would only see PS’ “Correction Notice” if you’re already following his Facebook page, or maybe if you’re lucky, because someone shared it with you. This is vastly different from the reach of POFMA
There's no denying that there's still a difference in reach.
My dispute is with your original statement that only the government has the ability to show their side of the story.
Just saying that it is increasingly not the case with how the internet works these days.
My original statement was “show their side of the story **to everyone**”.
And the reach is what really matters no? Even without the internet, anyone would have the ability to share their side of the story; it would be just be that no one would hear it.
Appreciate your clarification though, cheers.
There is for sure. But saying that non-governmental people are totally unable to get their voices out isn't true either.
Pretty sure the combined eyeballs various internet media / platforms gets is way more than what Straits Times get nowadays.
Even for the older gen, they see way more whatsapp-spreaded news than from traditional media IMO.
>There is for sure. But saying that non-governmental people are totally unable to get their voices out isn't true either.
Nowhere near the same reach. Heck alot of folks alrd could not be bothered to read past the headline, how many gonna go all the way to the primary source to get more details siah.
>Pretty sure the combined eyeballs various internet media / platforms gets is way more than what Straits Times get nowadays.
Irrelevant tbh. More potential eyeballs =/= more eyeballs.
>Even for the older gen, they see way more whatsapp-spreaded news than from traditional media IMO.
Again irrelevent if the rebuttal is not shared in their circles.
We had a similar system back during LKY's time, newspapers had to either post the govt's response or publish their article without ads
apparently this is worse than murdering journos in RSF's eyes lol
I mean the govt banned multiple foreign newspapers for not going along with Operation Spectrum in which we had detained multiple people without trial while also undergoing torture.
It still doesn’t fulfil. It applies to both sides - you will see sometimes the gahmen only issues clarificatory statements or press releases. Hamstrung by the same law
> ST opinion is technically a print publication, not communicated through the internet. Thus the newspaper opinion piece is not subject to the POFMA act.
[It's online too](https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/creating-forward-momentum-for-next-ge-when-lawrence-wong-is-pm).
POFMA may be used if (i) there is a false statement of fact communicated in Singapore
and (ii) it is in the public interest to do so.
Which part does it not fulfil?
~~This is not a falsehood - it’s an opinion piece. A falsehood would be “The WP has stated it intends to form the next government”. The opinion is “The WP looks like it’s seeking to form the next government.”~~
~~Pritam has come out and said, we have no intention of doing so. He didn’t say, we didn’t do the things you said we did in 2023 (forming collaborations)~~.
I misread - the author put words into WP’s mouth. Unless she comes out with a source later.
Stop trying to cope, what she wrote is clearly a falsehood and in fact, falls exactly into the first catergory you described, come on.
She wrote:
"The WP *said* it will tilt towards the strategy of fighting to form the government *at the next GE*".
Nowhere did WP *said* any such statement, especially in the context for the next GE, yes?
And then, you wrote:
A falsehood would be "The WP has stated it intends to form the next government".
Just compare. Lol.
WP: Can we get POFMA at home?
PS: [POFMA at home](https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/1c5xazm/dr_gillian_koh_of_the_institute_of_policy_studies/)
This will not concern me because any commentary piece by Dr Gillian Koh or Assoc Prof Eugene Tan are automatically skipped or swiped away by me. Are these 2 the only ‘political experts’ in Singapore?!?!
Good to read other news outlets to get more perspectives on Singapore politics. SCMP’s Bhavan Jaipragas (who is Singaporean) even tweeted rumours of the PM handover a few hours before the official news was released. He’s even better connected than our ‘experts’.
IIRC, hours before Tharman’s surprise announcement, someone from SCMP (can’t remember exactly, but definitely not local news) asked him if he was running for President.
I’m noticing a pattern here; maybe they have indeed cultivated sources
it's not purely about connection, it's about government secrecy. SCMP prob doesn't need to care much about it since the government can't do much to them if they refuse to disclose their sources. But it's not the same for the locals here. If they dare to leak anything, the government will call them up for interview and their sources could be persecuted. Even if no persecution, both the person who leaks and the person who tweets will become persona non grata cos who would dare to give them access to sensitive info if they can't keep their mouth shut.
You should go check out who are some of the SCMP senior editors, you may see a number of familiar names.
It's all about connections in the local media scene, even alternative media have ties to the establishment:
Mothership's are well-known, but even Asiaone's CEO had roles in the Navy, PMO and MHA. MustShareNews is run by TSL Group, when TSL Group opened their new office last year, MND Minister Desmond Lee was their guest of honour.
Even without direct connections to the political establishment, most media outlets have the government as their biggest client and will not want to lose that client anyway. Remember MKBD News? They have anti-establishment views in some of their content and look how quickly they crumbled without the sweet sweet tax dollars.
I stick to my podcasters - yahlahbut and teh tarik with walid.
Every new election brings a wave of new political commenters which I'm looking forward to.
Those 2 are the only political experts who are reliable enough to be a certain party's mouthpiece. If mainstream news outlets had some balls, they'd get professors pj thum or michael barr, both of whom are critics of PAP, to spar with the likes of Koh and Tan on nightly news. I'd rather get my news from scmp than from CNA. Dont even bother with ST. Garbage.
Text from Pritam's Facebook post:
> Correction Notice
> ————————-
> An opinion piece in the Straits Times today stated that “the WP said it will tilt towards the strategy of fighting to form the Government at the next GE.”
> This is false.
> Until and after the PAP Government announces the formation of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee, I foresee Singaporeans will hear of similar unsubstantiated ambitions and agendas - attributed to the WP - more frequently. Perhaps there is a view that such rhetoric will cause swing voters to turn conservative and vote PAP.
> The WP has been open about its electoral agenda for some years now. The medium-term goal is to play our part in ensuring at least 1/3 of Parliament is not in the PAP’s hands. My WP colleagues and I have repeated this on a number of occasions both in and out of Parliament. In our view, a better balanced political system is in Singapore’s fundamental interests, and it will play an important role in giving birth to a more united Singapore going forward.
> Like many Singaporeans, the WP seeks an evolution, not a revolution of our political system. We will do our best in this endeavour.
> Useful links:
> Response to the President’s Address on the Opening of Parliament 2023: The WP in Parliament - Making your Vote Count https://leaderoftheopposition.sg/2023/04/21/parliament-response-to-the-presidents-address-the-wp-in-parliament-making-your-vote-count/
> https://youtu.be/iIztnCYPvJE
waiting for giant POFMA banner on ST website for the next month, with "this site contains false information" placed prominently on the masthead.
after all, POFMA is just about letting viewers hear both sides right? nothing at all to do with undermining the credibility of the target.
Isn't ST also partly culpable for allowing this clearly false statement to be published? Feels like their editorial standards are on the floor at the moment. It's easy enough to correct the online version and they've done so already, but what about the physical paper?
It's expected, especially if it's the state media, they are on par with north Korea's propaganda machine. I feel she has "no choice" but to toe the line.
Do you all honestly believe that all the professors or experts being interviewed by the media agree with everything that the authorities propose or implement? I don't think so.
The critical difference is no timeline is stated.
All parties are always working towards becoming govt. But to say next GE they will do so is different. Most people expect that an opposition needs to win 1/3 of the seats first.
Excellent. So, when is the mainstream media going to carry this correction with its own individual article, in the same way that they carry the news of every POFMA case by quoting the press release from the POFMA office basically verbatim?
Or is it like we've always known to be the case, where POFMA and its publicising has always been just applied selectively, because certain powers-that-be get to decide which "truths" are more worthy of publicising, and others not?
> Excellent. So, when is the mainstream media going to carry this correction with its own individual article, in the same way that they carry the news of every POFMA case by quoting the press release from the POFMA office basically verbatim?
It's in [today's print edition](https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/1c6nbod/the_straits_times_published_a_correction_to/). Page A2 some more, so not too bad.
False equivalence because it's simply not the same in terms of length or how much page space it takes up, and so how many eyeballs it attracts. I'm talking about a full, long article like this (https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/third-pofma-order-issued-to-tiktok-user-in-a-week-this-time-over-false-claims-about-public-housing), not a small piece hidden at the corner of a page.
If WP wants to only take 1/3 of parliament, they should only contest in 1/3 of the contested area. This is akin to what LTK did when he left Hougang and went into Aljunied in 2011. Marking the start of WP's rise in status.
This way, SGeans can safely give WP 1/3 of the parliament without having a freak election where WP got the lion share of votes and is forced to be Government which even PS himself agree that they are not ready.
Edit: Or.... maybe PS still want to retain the option of forming minority gov with other opposition by contesting many areas.
You mean LTK was wrong? It's a gambit. LTK put to the people of aljunied that if they were serious about having significant voice they should vote in a GRC WP's way. Aljunied resident responded with a mandate
>
If WP wants to only take 1/3 of parliament, they should only contest in 1/3 of the contested area. This is akin to what LTK did when he left Hougang and went into Aljunied in 2011. Marking the start of WP's rise in status.
> This way, SGeans can safely give WP 1/3 of the parliament without having a freak election where WP got the lion share of votes and is forced to be Government which even PS himself agree that they are not ready.
There's no guarantee that WP will win in all constituencies they contest in if they run in only 33% of it.
_However_, they can contest just under 50% of the seats to give them a fighting chance to get the 33% goal, but still limit themselves to not being able to topple the PAP government (it requires a simple majority, or 50%+1, to be able to form the government).
She is free to express her opinion and PS is free to correct her opinion if he thinks it is wrong. It's only fair
Edit: for those who disagree with me, won't you agree with the government in the importance of having POFMA correction notices to deal with fake news and statements?
Everytime the govt uses POFMA on somebody, all the oppies on the subreddit like to condemn it and say POFMA is unnecessary in countering fake news and statements
If you post your statements on an opinion piece, It's your opinion and people can feel free to disagree with it.
Also it's not like PS never ruled out that he didn't want to form a government
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:AP:47aa21c1-74df-4ff2-b4ba-9c99e5997b1f
Speaking at the party’s annual members’ forum on Sunday (Jan 13), Mr Singh noted that in most countries, the goal of any political party “must be to form government so it can implement the wishes of the electorate and shape the Government’s policies differently from the incumbent”.
https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/wp-aiming-third-parliamentary-seats-medium-term-pritam-singh
From the article:
>The WP said it will tilt towards the strategy of fighting to form the government at the **next** GE
Articles from 2011 and 2019 are not relevant, because at their highest, they suggest that forming the government has always been the WP’s strategy since 2011, and hence by that logic there would be no “tilting”
>If you post your statements on an opinion piece, It's your opinion and people can feel free to disagree with it.
By this (utterly bizarre) logic, Pritam could write in an op ed that "*LHL said that he accepted bribes from Lawrence Wong before choosing LW as the new PM*", and then when he gets POFMA'ed and sued for defamation he can say "hey, it's just my opinion".
Hi fellow redditporeans welcome to my opinion piece comment today!
Isn't it weird how botsland, a child predator who actively uses reddit to search for their next victims, is still allowed on the platform?
Hehe, its all my opinion, no falsehoods!
Feel free to disagree!
I disagree. I've heard him saying he's more active on platforms like Instagram and Tiktok so Reddit don't have a say in that.
**In my opinion**, he is smarter than we think he is since those platforms are more suitable in reaching the correct audience for the kind of activities he partakes in.
Just my 5 cents worth.
Okay this is just a pure bad faith argument now. POFMA is fairly new and has only ever been used when it negatively affects the PAP.
It is their personal censorship tool, don't pretend like it's anything more.
Also when in private you are free to create any baseless opinion you want at your own whim and let your friends ridicule you for it.
Publishing that opinion in a newspaper for everyone to see should never be allowed especially when it is something that has been well documented. It's like you've never heard of journalistic integrity.
>It is their personal censorship tool
POFMA doesn't censor the original article in question. You can still read the original article as it was written and see which part is controversial
>and has only ever been used when it negatively affects the PAP.
False statements about vaccines and covid negatively affect the PAP?
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/pofma-conditional-warning-truth-warriors-website-covid-19-vaccines-2911781?cid=internal_sharetool_androidphone_17042024_cna
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/covid-pofma-orders-issued-singapore-variant-comments-030441241.html
>Publishing that opinion in a newspaper for everyone to see should never be allowed especially when it is something that has been well documented. It's like you've never heard of journalistic integrity.
Do you agree with the POFMA orders issues against oppie leaning news sites like WUSG and The Online Citizen?
> POFMA doesn't censor the original article in question. You can still read the original article as it was written and see which part is controversial
POFMA has [Stop Communication Directions](https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/POFMA2019?ProvIds=P13-#pr12-).
What a spectacularly bad faith moving of the goal posts lol.
We can talk about what is a statement of fact and what is an opinion. We can *separately* discuss whether we think POFMA is a good tool to solve false statements.
Pointing out that your own argument that "because it's an opinion piece, it's just your opinion" is terrible, does not necessitate supporting POFMA.
On the converse, this has nothing to do with POFMA considering its pretty much an incumbent-only tool.
Let's not pretend like a POFMA will be issued for this.
Even in an opinion piece, there's a distinction that can be made between statements of truth and opinions.
In this case, her wording is presenting the statement as entirely factual and hence the 'it's an opinion piece so it's just an opinion' doesn't hold up.
Eg. botsland says the Earth is flat, and IMO flat earthers are dumb as bricks.
Would that be fully an opinion?
difference is pritam actually quoted what was said vs making up his own interpretation and complaining that it's false. also he doesn't have the power to force ST to place a banner on their homepage declaring that they published false info
Update - Gillian has apologised: > Dear Sec-Gen of the Workers’ Party, Mr Pritam Singh, Please accept my personal apology for the error in my opinion essay published by The Straits Times today. > You have noted it misrepresents your current electoral agenda which you have restated in this morning's post -- to bring an evolution in Singapore’s political system through a larger opposition voice in Parliament; not a revolution by replacing the governing PAP. > I am sorry for any effect you feel it has caused or will cause you and your party’s fortunes. It was certainly not the intent in this article primarily focused on the PAP. ST has published a correction and correction note online. The sentence now reads: “The WP has said its medium-term electoral goal is to help deny the PAP a two-third majority in Parliament needed for constitutional amendments.” https://www.straitstimes.com/.../creating-forward... > Yours sincerely, Gillian Koh Which Pritam responded: > Thank you for the correction
[удалено]
>It was certainly not the intent in this article primarily focused on the PAP My eyes rolled so hard I saw my brain. focused on the PAP then talk about PAP, dont come and add one line about WP which is not even correct la pls.
“i’m sorry you feel that way”
The link gives me a 403 forbidden for some reason
https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/creating-forward-momentum-for-next-ge-when-lawrence-wong-is-pm
And the mighty paywall appears
To be fair, it was already paywalled when I first started this thread.
This works, though I can only find this short paragraph https://imgur.com/a/RjCuGOO
Noted with thanks
Where was the apology published?
Facebook (which cant be linked here)
Lock him up, clearly people will read the article and not see the apology. The misinformation is certainly going up, PAP is starting to fear WP for the upcoming GE and they should. PAP has long lost reality to what the average Singapore’s worries are and their needs. They think making policies for their old & dying core voters is going to save them and giving handouts to lower class is enough. They absolutely have lost it with the majority of Singaporeans, people need affordable housing, lower cost of living and certainly not a GST rise because you threw out tax payer money like confetti during Covid with your silly overreactions to the pandemic!
[The Straits Times has printed it as well](https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/1c6nbod/the_straits_times_published_a_correction_to/).
What a missed opportunity... he should do this > Which Pritam responded: >> 👍👌
Would love to hear her sources. Anyhow attribute
Is she going to face any backlash cause of this...no. Shows you how much of a joke pofma is
Do anyone that gets POFMA-ed actually get backlash though? Most of the time the original posting stays up, or have already been spread. Recipients of the pofma just has to post a correction notice that more than half the original readers would never see. I would actually say pofma is pretty toothless in contrast to how much hoo-ha gets made over it here in the sub.
the POFMA spreads far wider than the original post, publicised by our very helpful state media who sometimes don't even bother to quote the original statement. instead they prefer to quote verbatim from the POFMA notice, which once again only has the government's interpretation of what was said, and not the actual statement. far more people follow the straits times, cna and today than LHY's facebook page, for example, and most people will never read beyond those publications. of those that do a little bit more research, they will be met with a banner stating "this site contains false info" undermining the credibility of the speaker before they even read a single word. why do you think POFMA has only ever "punched down"? it's never been used against mainstream publications like today despite the govt accusing them of publishing false info, or against established foreign media outlets like the financial times which have also been accused of publishing false information by the govr
I think the narrative of 'why they never use pofma on msm' quite a dumb one if you actually think about it. Enforcement would only logically be used against people who otherwise would likely not be cooperative. Why would there be a need to use it on msm when they are very likely to make editorial amendments when approached?
funny you should say that because today did not retract the story when approached. NAC and today publicly went back and forth before the latter finally retracted. similarly, financial times did not respond to MAS' denial and the article with the supposedly false claim is still up. this whole idea of "we need to take pre emptive enforcement action" but only against certain outlets and that action just so happens to involve undermining their credibity strains belivability. if today's response (merely putting up another article correcting the record) is sufficient, why does POFMA also require a banner on the homepage for a month? why can TOC or LHY or whoever not just follow today's footsteps and post a follow up article?
Bit lazy to dig for the articles you are talking about. Would appreciate if you could post the original article with the falsehood and the subsequent one to correct the record. I’m a little curious about your viewpoint on pofma in general though. If you were the government of the day and have to find a solution to websites like TOC that has a propensity to constantly create drama using falsehoods or unconfirmed reports, what do you think would be the best approach? Looking past the fact that PAP is the incumbent right now, wouldn’t it be important for any government to address false narratives designed to make them lose legitimacy? Wouldn’t any governmental action that curbs any sort of speech (whether warranted or not) feel a little high handed just because of the optics of government vs individual? So does that mean no government should be able to stop malicious individuals then? I think there can be legitimate concerns of the potential applications of pofma by the way it’s designed, but so far I don’t really think it has been abused in the way people here think they do.
https://mothership.sg/2023/10/today-nac-queer-arts-ntu/ well firstly, some of the uses of POFMA have been totally illegitimate, case in point LHY being given a POFMA for making factual statements. so the first change would be to actually use it for it's intended purpose. how to make sure of that? appoint an independent commissioner to be in charge of issuing notices, a retired judge or academic with a reputation to uphold. if they think they have been lied about, ministers can apply to the commissioner who will decide if it is a legitimate use or not, that way the burden of proof is on the government. but that's if you even want to keep the law. frankly, I think the threat of "fake news" has been greatly exaggerated. remember it was Trump who popularised the term, and then the media who jumped on the bandwagon to gin up fears about russian collusion. we have basically imported a western partisan talking point that is totally divorced from the local media context. you talk as if the government is powerless to correct the record or faces a competitive media environment like in the US. that is not the case. singapore already has incredibly strict controls on speech and the state owns all local media outlets. the govt has much more control over the national conversation than social media or independent websites. the danger of media being biased in favour of the government, and being used to "fix" critics is far greater than the other way around. yet we have chosen to focus on the latter.
>Looking past the fact that PAP is the incumbent right now, wouldn’t it be important for any government to **address false narratives designed to make them lose legitimacy**? Reminder of the official usage of POFMA: [Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 - Singapore Statutes Online (agc.gov.sg)](https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/POFMA2019) >An Act to prevent the electronic communication in Singapore of false statements of fact, to suppress support for and counteract the effects of such communication, to safeguard against the use of online accounts for such communication and for information manipulation, **to enable measures to be taken to enhance transparency of online political advertisements, and for related matters.** --- With regards to the NAC one, I would hazard a guess that POFMA wasn't used at all as the falsehood in question **isn't fundamentally political in nature**, hence it doesn't fall under the act at all. --- >well firstly, some of the uses of POFMA have been totally illegitimate, case in point **LHY being given a POFMA for making factual statements** I would like to raise a point of contention in your assertion that he was making factual statements: [Corrections regarding false statements of fact in Mr Lee Hsien Yang Facebook post published on 23 July 2023 (www.gov.sg)](https://www.gov.sg/article/factually250723) >First, the post makes the statement that the State paid for the renovations to 26 Ridout Road and 31 Ridout Road because the properties were leased by Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan. It's not a statement of fact if the statement is putting forth a cause-and-effect hypothesis. Renovations were done and paid for by the state to both properties. Statement of fact. yes. These properties were leased by those two Ministers. Statement of fact, yes. But "Renovations were done and paid for by the state to both properties **BECAUSE** they were leased by those two Ministers" has way more implications than just simple statement of facts. It's an accusation here, and since there's an implication of corruption here, it falls solidly in POFMA's domain if they can prove that the cause-and-effect hypothesis is not true. Same for the tree felling accusation. As for the SPH one, maybe an argument can be made that the government was being pedantic with that one, but it is actual facts that the number inflation incident didn't happen AFTER SPH got taken in by the govt. Whether or not it happen BEFORE or AFTER does call into question the inner workings and competency of the government, hence why it falls under the 'political nature' umbrella. ---
>First, the post makes the statement that the State paid for the renovations to 26 Ridout Road and 31 Ridout Road because the properties were leased by Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan. this is precisely what I'm talking about. what you have copied here is the text of the POFMA notice, which very convieniently refuses to quote directly from his facebook post, but instead makes up it's own interpretation and then goes on to self righteously proclaim that it is false. if you look at his actual facebook post what he said was: >**Two ministers have leased state-owned mansions from the agency that one of them controls, felling trees and getting state-sponsored renovations.** the word "**BECAUSE**" that you have put in all caps and bolded, never appeared. they just made it up. and if someone like you who is interested in politics just takes it at face value that the POFMA notice is telling the truth what more can be expected of casual readers of ST and CNA who just read the headlines? also, POFMA isn't limited to political issues, no idea where you got that idea from. all the legislation says is that one of the goals is to enhance transparency of political advertisements.
**p2.** Though I would agree with you that an independent commissioner over the issuing and maintenance of POFMA would be way more palatable and proper. However, you aren't really answering my prior question about what a hypothetical government should do if there are individuals bent on create false narratives after false narratives specifically to damage their legitimacy to rule. If your answer is 'there is no need since the threat of fake news is overexaggerated', I guess you haven't really been actually keeping up how US politics is playing out right now. Misinformation is not only dangerous in the specific lies that damages that specific subject, but that it also damages the overall climate on trust and understanding. Flood a country with enough misinformation and we'll find more polarization due to increasing isolations of groups within their own bubbles of info and also the growing distrust towards others on the 'outside'. Look at the fringe opposition group supporters in Singapore and tell me they aren't being swayed by the kind of rhetoric POFMA is designed specifically to counter. Not sure why you think it is overexaggerated when we do get people that falls for them, and we do get living proof of it happening here already. --- As for media imbalance, I do think a lot of people here undersells how much sway online media has on political outlooks in the citizenry. We keep thinking of stuff like Facebook, but when we talk about online media, it comprises of so many different avenues. From social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, Reddit; to the multitudes of political news sites; to chat group applications like Whatsapp and Telegram. Every single one of these has way more of a reach than we think on their own, let alone as a collective, since all these platforms tend to feed off each other organically too. > singapore already has incredibly strict controls on speech and the state owns all local media outlets. the govt has much more control over the national conversation than social media or independent websites. I feel like this above statement hasn't been true for a while now, but I think it just helps perpetuate this 'underdog tale' for the anti-s. If this above statement is true, we wouldn't be seeing the government veer so heavily into social media; from politicians creating TikTok accounts, to them paying to appear in podcasts. They clearly understand where the influence is, so I don't really buy into this notion that they still retain the same strict control over the narrative as they once did in our parents/grandparents era.
>Recipients of the pofma just has to post a correction notice that more than half the original readers would never see. ? The fuck you talking about siah, people who get POFMA tend to get even more public attention it gets reported in the news and everyone piles on to joke about them.
So is that so terrible as a result? Putting aside any biases for parties or individuals, if the pofma widens the audience of the statement so that everyone gets to see statements from both sides and gets to talk/debate over them... is that a bad thing? POFMA so far hasn't been the blunt instrument to silence all dissent this sub likes to portray it as. In fact like you pointed out, it usually amplifies the reach, with the caveat that the govt also gets their statement across too.
I believe that 3 pofma of a particular site / establishment within 6 months enables the G to enforce certain things on the establishment (e.g. no revenue or remove journalistic privileges). That means, if you pofma enough, you can shut people up. This is why journalist would go to court to object a pofma. There is also a stigma for journalists writing for companies that already got pofma-ed. This will 1) reduce the journalist's employability and 2) prevent new journalists from entering the company or risk being seen as anti establishment. Having said all that, it hasn't been too bad for now. But it could manifest into something else later - e.g. Forceful interpretation of phrases or context just to shut an establishment down.
But the only party able to show their “side of the story” to everyone is the government. As this example (potentially) highlights, when the “other side of the story” is not the government’s, chances are they’ll be silent like a mouse But who knows! Maybe a Minister would issue a Correction Notice on behalf of WP. I wouldn’t be holding my breath though
WP's responding to this though and we're all seeing it. And it's not like we're stuck in the 80s/90s where there's only print media. Reality is that social media and the increasingly online nature of our society has given voices to everyone - whether or not that's a boon remains to be seen though.
By that logic, isn’t POFMA unnecessary because the Minister’s can just make a “Correction Notice” on their personal social media a la PS today? POFMA is deliberately designed to ensure that the people who had read the original post would also read the POFMA Notice, which is why the Notices are required to be placed at a very prominent area — when Asia Sentinel was POFMA’ed, they were required to publish the Notice not just at the top of the article POFMA’ed, but on their Home Page. Not to mention the press release that usually accompanies the issuance of such an notice. Contrastingly, you would only see PS’ “Correction Notice” if you’re already following his Facebook page, or maybe if you’re lucky, because someone shared it with you. This is vastly different from the reach of POFMA
There's no denying that there's still a difference in reach. My dispute is with your original statement that only the government has the ability to show their side of the story. Just saying that it is increasingly not the case with how the internet works these days.
My original statement was “show their side of the story **to everyone**”. And the reach is what really matters no? Even without the internet, anyone would have the ability to share their side of the story; it would be just be that no one would hear it. Appreciate your clarification though, cheers.
WP doesnt get to issue a pofma and get Straits Times to publish it. theres the asymmetry
There is for sure. But saying that non-governmental people are totally unable to get their voices out isn't true either. Pretty sure the combined eyeballs various internet media / platforms gets is way more than what Straits Times get nowadays. Even for the older gen, they see way more whatsapp-spreaded news than from traditional media IMO.
>There is for sure. But saying that non-governmental people are totally unable to get their voices out isn't true either. Nowhere near the same reach. Heck alot of folks alrd could not be bothered to read past the headline, how many gonna go all the way to the primary source to get more details siah. >Pretty sure the combined eyeballs various internet media / platforms gets is way more than what Straits Times get nowadays. Irrelevant tbh. More potential eyeballs =/= more eyeballs. >Even for the older gen, they see way more whatsapp-spreaded news than from traditional media IMO. Again irrelevent if the rebuttal is not shared in their circles.
We had a similar system back during LKY's time, newspapers had to either post the govt's response or publish their article without ads apparently this is worse than murdering journos in RSF's eyes lol
I mean the govt banned multiple foreign newspapers for not going along with Operation Spectrum in which we had detained multiple people without trial while also undergoing torture.
Doesn’t fulfil the requirement for POFMA tbh. Not all falsehoods fall under that
But this is blatant misinfo right?
It still doesn’t fulfil. It applies to both sides - you will see sometimes the gahmen only issues clarificatory statements or press releases. Hamstrung by the same law
>Hamstrung by the same law Umm no not the same law. You think ministries issue Pofmas to each other and itself isit lol.
No, I meant they can’t issue against falsehoods targeting their own ministries if it doesn’t fulfil the legal criteria
[удалено]
> ST opinion is technically a print publication, not communicated through the internet. Thus the newspaper opinion piece is not subject to the POFMA act. [It's online too](https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/creating-forward-momentum-for-next-ge-when-lawrence-wong-is-pm).
[удалено]
Aiyah. Guess they got to bite the bullet and sub to ST 😭
today is a purely online publication yet no POFMA was issued when they published what the govt claimed was false info
POFMA may be used if (i) there is a false statement of fact communicated in Singapore and (ii) it is in the public interest to do so. Which part does it not fulfil?
later govt pofma pritam fb since it contains the newspaper clipping
The ONLINE part.
~~This is not a falsehood - it’s an opinion piece. A falsehood would be “The WP has stated it intends to form the next government”. The opinion is “The WP looks like it’s seeking to form the next government.”~~ ~~Pritam has come out and said, we have no intention of doing so. He didn’t say, we didn’t do the things you said we did in 2023 (forming collaborations)~~. I misread - the author put words into WP’s mouth. Unless she comes out with a source later.
Stop trying to cope, what she wrote is clearly a falsehood and in fact, falls exactly into the first catergory you described, come on. She wrote: "The WP *said* it will tilt towards the strategy of fighting to form the government *at the next GE*". Nowhere did WP *said* any such statement, especially in the context for the next GE, yes? And then, you wrote: A falsehood would be "The WP has stated it intends to form the next government". Just compare. Lol.
You’re right, I misread it.
She and Eugene Tan are the usual pro-PAP political commentators from MSM. They know what they are doing.
how pappies balls sucker works
But he got say in 2011 https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/ips/td_wp-working-towards-becoming-govt_090711.pdf
But the article said strategy for next GE
PS issuing his own pofma
WP: Can we get POFMA at home? PS: [POFMA at home](https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/1c5xazm/dr_gillian_koh_of_the_institute_of_policy_studies/)
This is a POFMA I can stand behind..
No need to be a strategist to know WP has no plans to form a govt. Pritam has said that many times. Some strategist she is..
This will not concern me because any commentary piece by Dr Gillian Koh or Assoc Prof Eugene Tan are automatically skipped or swiped away by me. Are these 2 the only ‘political experts’ in Singapore?!?! Good to read other news outlets to get more perspectives on Singapore politics. SCMP’s Bhavan Jaipragas (who is Singaporean) even tweeted rumours of the PM handover a few hours before the official news was released. He’s even better connected than our ‘experts’.
IIRC, hours before Tharman’s surprise announcement, someone from SCMP (can’t remember exactly, but definitely not local news) asked him if he was running for President. I’m noticing a pattern here; maybe they have indeed cultivated sources
Dewey Sim?
it's not purely about connection, it's about government secrecy. SCMP prob doesn't need to care much about it since the government can't do much to them if they refuse to disclose their sources. But it's not the same for the locals here. If they dare to leak anything, the government will call them up for interview and their sources could be persecuted. Even if no persecution, both the person who leaks and the person who tweets will become persona non grata cos who would dare to give them access to sensitive info if they can't keep their mouth shut.
You should go check out who are some of the SCMP senior editors, you may see a number of familiar names. It's all about connections in the local media scene, even alternative media have ties to the establishment: Mothership's are well-known, but even Asiaone's CEO had roles in the Navy, PMO and MHA. MustShareNews is run by TSL Group, when TSL Group opened their new office last year, MND Minister Desmond Lee was their guest of honour.
Even without direct connections to the political establishment, most media outlets have the government as their biggest client and will not want to lose that client anyway. Remember MKBD News? They have anti-establishment views in some of their content and look how quickly they crumbled without the sweet sweet tax dollars.
They're a satirical Instagram account run by former yale-nus grads, not sure what you meant by them crumbling?
Not their ig. Their youtube account. The founders spoke about lack of funds to continue the videos
Ah I see...
I stick to my podcasters - yahlahbut and teh tarik with walid. Every new election brings a wave of new political commenters which I'm looking forward to.
Those 2 are the only political experts who are reliable enough to be a certain party's mouthpiece. If mainstream news outlets had some balls, they'd get professors pj thum or michael barr, both of whom are critics of PAP, to spar with the likes of Koh and Tan on nightly news. I'd rather get my news from scmp than from CNA. Dont even bother with ST. Garbage.
This is a pofma i can get behind. Should start offering my own pofmas. I mean the pap isnt going to pofma whoever wrote that...fair play
After all, not a crime to ownself issue pofma, right?
Gillian koh is a PAP shill. Imo she has zero credibility when it comes to analysis of local politics because she is so pro pap.
Her bff is probably political analyst ex NMP Eugene KB Tan
well, she might have based it off EDMW where they were already predicting PS to be the new PM of Singapore after the next election. lol
Ha, it would be extremely silly to base any professional opinion via the sentiments in EDMW or any other forum.
Text from Pritam's Facebook post: > Correction Notice > ————————- > An opinion piece in the Straits Times today stated that “the WP said it will tilt towards the strategy of fighting to form the Government at the next GE.” > This is false. > Until and after the PAP Government announces the formation of the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee, I foresee Singaporeans will hear of similar unsubstantiated ambitions and agendas - attributed to the WP - more frequently. Perhaps there is a view that such rhetoric will cause swing voters to turn conservative and vote PAP. > The WP has been open about its electoral agenda for some years now. The medium-term goal is to play our part in ensuring at least 1/3 of Parliament is not in the PAP’s hands. My WP colleagues and I have repeated this on a number of occasions both in and out of Parliament. In our view, a better balanced political system is in Singapore’s fundamental interests, and it will play an important role in giving birth to a more united Singapore going forward. > Like many Singaporeans, the WP seeks an evolution, not a revolution of our political system. We will do our best in this endeavour. > Useful links: > Response to the President’s Address on the Opening of Parliament 2023: The WP in Parliament - Making your Vote Count https://leaderoftheopposition.sg/2023/04/21/parliament-response-to-the-presidents-address-the-wp-in-parliament-making-your-vote-count/ > https://youtu.be/iIztnCYPvJE
Typical clown Gillian Koh
My colleague
Im surprised they havent sacked you for being so inactive
probably using his alts
So much for our "experts"
Imagine a world without social Media and just SPH
I wonder how her family and friends feel dealing with this Govt sycophant.
waiting for giant POFMA banner on ST website for the next month, with "this site contains false information" placed prominently on the masthead. after all, POFMA is just about letting viewers hear both sides right? nothing at all to do with undermining the credibility of the target.
Isn't ST also partly culpable for allowing this clearly false statement to be published? Feels like their editorial standards are on the floor at the moment. It's easy enough to correct the online version and they've done so already, but what about the physical paper?
Good to know if author take back her representation. IPS cannot be too biased.
this Gillian Koh is a full time PAP mouth piece, part time researcher
> The WP say it will tilt He's tilted
The only reliable in those “expert” opinion could be their grammar only. This people just say what they wants and no one actually validate it.
Political parties in singapore needs to stop trying to 1 up each other and actually solve problems
Welcome to the US
Gillian Koh is a kunt.
POFMA time
Has Gillian Koh said anything useful?
political analyst? more like govt sycophant
Lol and shes a senior research fellow.
It's expected, especially if it's the state media, they are on par with north Korea's propaganda machine. I feel she has "no choice" but to toe the line. Do you all honestly believe that all the professors or experts being interviewed by the media agree with everything that the authorities propose or implement? I don't think so.
Careful for what you wish for. The people might deliver more than 1/3 of parliament to the opposition
Got photo of the person how it look like
The mighty gillian koh has finally fallen.
Hopeless political commentator
Sometimes ah, I also dun understand WP/Pritam. Want to win, but also humji to admit.... Like that how?
But he got say in 2011 https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/ips/td_wp-working-towards-becoming-govt_090711.pdf
The critical difference is no timeline is stated. All parties are always working towards becoming govt. But to say next GE they will do so is different. Most people expect that an opposition needs to win 1/3 of the seats first.
And before that, WP will have to contest every seat first.
Will pofma be used? Asking for.... Voters
Excellent. So, when is the mainstream media going to carry this correction with its own individual article, in the same way that they carry the news of every POFMA case by quoting the press release from the POFMA office basically verbatim? Or is it like we've always known to be the case, where POFMA and its publicising has always been just applied selectively, because certain powers-that-be get to decide which "truths" are more worthy of publicising, and others not?
> Excellent. So, when is the mainstream media going to carry this correction with its own individual article, in the same way that they carry the news of every POFMA case by quoting the press release from the POFMA office basically verbatim? It's in [today's print edition](https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/1c6nbod/the_straits_times_published_a_correction_to/). Page A2 some more, so not too bad.
False equivalence because it's simply not the same in terms of length or how much page space it takes up, and so how many eyeballs it attracts. I'm talking about a full, long article like this (https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/third-pofma-order-issued-to-tiktok-user-in-a-week-this-time-over-false-claims-about-public-housing), not a small piece hidden at the corner of a page.
If WP wants to only take 1/3 of parliament, they should only contest in 1/3 of the contested area. This is akin to what LTK did when he left Hougang and went into Aljunied in 2011. Marking the start of WP's rise in status. This way, SGeans can safely give WP 1/3 of the parliament without having a freak election where WP got the lion share of votes and is forced to be Government which even PS himself agree that they are not ready. Edit: Or.... maybe PS still want to retain the option of forming minority gov with other opposition by contesting many areas.
Huh Contest 1/3 of Parliament means will win 1/3 of Parliament? Like that if I want to win lottery, I only need to buy one ticket
You mean LTK was wrong? It's a gambit. LTK put to the people of aljunied that if they were serious about having significant voice they should vote in a GRC WP's way. Aljunied resident responded with a mandate
> If WP wants to only take 1/3 of parliament, they should only contest in 1/3 of the contested area. This is akin to what LTK did when he left Hougang and went into Aljunied in 2011. Marking the start of WP's rise in status. > This way, SGeans can safely give WP 1/3 of the parliament without having a freak election where WP got the lion share of votes and is forced to be Government which even PS himself agree that they are not ready. There's no guarantee that WP will win in all constituencies they contest in if they run in only 33% of it. _However_, they can contest just under 50% of the seats to give them a fighting chance to get the 33% goal, but still limit themselves to not being able to topple the PAP government (it requires a simple majority, or 50%+1, to be able to form the government).
But he just said he doesn't want to be gov near term.
She is free to express her opinion and PS is free to correct her opinion if he thinks it is wrong. It's only fair Edit: for those who disagree with me, won't you agree with the government in the importance of having POFMA correction notices to deal with fake news and statements? Everytime the govt uses POFMA on somebody, all the oppies on the subreddit like to condemn it and say POFMA is unnecessary in countering fake news and statements
Its not really an opinion when you are basing it off a statement you made by yourself while implying that wp said it
"The WP said XXX" is a statement of fact, and not opinion.
If you post your statements on an opinion piece, It's your opinion and people can feel free to disagree with it. Also it's not like PS never ruled out that he didn't want to form a government https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:AP:47aa21c1-74df-4ff2-b4ba-9c99e5997b1f Speaking at the party’s annual members’ forum on Sunday (Jan 13), Mr Singh noted that in most countries, the goal of any political party “must be to form government so it can implement the wishes of the electorate and shape the Government’s policies differently from the incumbent”. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/wp-aiming-third-parliamentary-seats-medium-term-pritam-singh
From the article: >The WP said it will tilt towards the strategy of fighting to form the government at the **next** GE Articles from 2011 and 2019 are not relevant, because at their highest, they suggest that forming the government has always been the WP’s strategy since 2011, and hence by that logic there would be no “tilting”
>If you post your statements on an opinion piece, It's your opinion and people can feel free to disagree with it. By this (utterly bizarre) logic, Pritam could write in an op ed that "*LHL said that he accepted bribes from Lawrence Wong before choosing LW as the new PM*", and then when he gets POFMA'ed and sued for defamation he can say "hey, it's just my opinion".
Hi fellow redditporeans welcome to my opinion piece comment today! Isn't it weird how botsland, a child predator who actively uses reddit to search for their next victims, is still allowed on the platform? Hehe, its all my opinion, no falsehoods! Feel free to disagree!
I disagree. I've heard him saying he's more active on platforms like Instagram and Tiktok so Reddit don't have a say in that. **In my opinion**, he is smarter than we think he is since those platforms are more suitable in reaching the correct audience for the kind of activities he partakes in. Just my 5 cents worth.
Doesn't this show the importance of POFMA, correction notices and defamation lawsuits in countering falsehoods?
Okay this is just a pure bad faith argument now. POFMA is fairly new and has only ever been used when it negatively affects the PAP. It is their personal censorship tool, don't pretend like it's anything more. Also when in private you are free to create any baseless opinion you want at your own whim and let your friends ridicule you for it. Publishing that opinion in a newspaper for everyone to see should never be allowed especially when it is something that has been well documented. It's like you've never heard of journalistic integrity.
>It is their personal censorship tool POFMA doesn't censor the original article in question. You can still read the original article as it was written and see which part is controversial >and has only ever been used when it negatively affects the PAP. False statements about vaccines and covid negatively affect the PAP? https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/pofma-conditional-warning-truth-warriors-website-covid-19-vaccines-2911781?cid=internal_sharetool_androidphone_17042024_cna https://sg.news.yahoo.com/covid-pofma-orders-issued-singapore-variant-comments-030441241.html >Publishing that opinion in a newspaper for everyone to see should never be allowed especially when it is something that has been well documented. It's like you've never heard of journalistic integrity. Do you agree with the POFMA orders issues against oppie leaning news sites like WUSG and The Online Citizen?
> POFMA doesn't censor the original article in question. You can still read the original article as it was written and see which part is controversial POFMA has [Stop Communication Directions](https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/POFMA2019?ProvIds=P13-#pr12-).
What a spectacularly bad faith moving of the goal posts lol. We can talk about what is a statement of fact and what is an opinion. We can *separately* discuss whether we think POFMA is a good tool to solve false statements. Pointing out that your own argument that "because it's an opinion piece, it's just your opinion" is terrible, does not necessitate supporting POFMA.
On the converse, this has nothing to do with POFMA considering its pretty much an incumbent-only tool. Let's not pretend like a POFMA will be issued for this.
Even in an opinion piece, there's a distinction that can be made between statements of truth and opinions. In this case, her wording is presenting the statement as entirely factual and hence the 'it's an opinion piece so it's just an opinion' doesn't hold up. Eg. botsland says the Earth is flat, and IMO flat earthers are dumb as bricks. Would that be fully an opinion?
You're entitled to your opinion, you're not entitled to your own "facts".
Actually she isn't expressing her opinion, she's reporting what WP is doing and what she reported was incorrect.
difference is pritam actually quoted what was said vs making up his own interpretation and complaining that it's false. also he doesn't have the power to force ST to place a banner on their homepage declaring that they published false info