News

MCI & MinLaw Said TOC’s Editor Terry Xu’s FB Post About Fake News Has Incorrect Information

2019-10-07 , 1:00 pm

Alright people. Get your popcorn ready.

It’s just another day for another Facebook fight between TOC and the gahmen.

But what is it this time? Will there be a groundbreaking revelation this time? Or is this just another one of those daily quarrels you see your neighbours having?

Here’s something you should notice: what Terry Xu and TOC published are opinions. Because unlike actual news which report on facts, opinions are well, opinions.

It’s like me saying I prefer well-done steak or cereal with water. You may not agree with me, but that’s how I like it and there’s a reason why.

(Don’t hurt me I actually don’t prefer well-done steak but I know people who do and understand why.)

You might need to read up on POFMA before continuing.

4 October 2019, Terry Xu Posted On Facebook

What the post wants to question is, as it is titled, “What the POFMA appeal timeframe means in a General Election“.

The context here is that Singapore General Elections are typically nine days from nomination to polling, and that the things deemed as fake can be appealed for, but this is a process that takes at least nine days (consist of two working days to decide whether to allow the appeal, then six to fix a hearing date).

Put nine and nine together, you can understand where he is coming from, or in his words,

“So effectively, if someone whistleblows during an election or just prior, to something the nature of the Hep C cover-up prior to the GE2015, the ruling party can throw a takedown or correction order on the story or statement by the whistleblower, only for the story to be proven correct after the election is won without the voters knowing what actually happened.”

Another argument made is the cost for the average appealer:

“This is assuming if one would want to go through the whole process of filing court documents, taking time off from one’s work to file documents during office hours and bearing costs that can go up to tens of thousands due to court fees. While the filing of appeal is only S$200 and the first three days of court hearing is waived, the possibility of having to pay $6,000 for the fourth day of hearing and more onwards, is surely enough to deter most of the population especially in light of the lack of precedence where the government loses its case.”

Just reading his post alone (i.e. not verifying the facts), you can’t say he doesn’t make sense.

Before we look at the counter from the gahmen, there’s another piece.

05 October 2019, TOC Published An Opinion Piece

The opinion article was titled “Has anyone thought about this one way top-down enforcement of so-called “fake news”?”

What the opinion piece asserts is that “the statute could potentially allow a Minister to deem a piece of news as “fake” as a means to silence a critic”.

It’s a relatively short piece, so, unfortunately, there aren’t many backable facts there, but a lot of questions were asked.

Questions like…

“If this is the case, why does it only work one way? Only a minister can initiate the working of this law. What if it is someone within the government that unwittingly spreads “fake news”?”

“Also, given the ease at which the government can call for an election, and the decisions that are within their purview to make, is there a risk of this legislation being used to silence critics for a crucial 9 days in the lead up to an election?”

The gahmen naturally isn’t happy with TOC and Terry Xu throwing misleading information here, so…

MCI And MinLaw Said The Posts Contain Falsehoods In A Facebook Post

The reply is actually really straightforward and self-explanatory, so here’s the entire thing:

𝗠𝗖𝗜 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗟𝗮𝘄 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗻 𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗿𝘆 𝗫𝘂’𝘀 𝗙𝗕 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗧𝗢𝗖 𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲

Dear The Online Citizen SG,

You have published a post by your editor, Mr Terry Xu, and another article by Ghui, on POFMA and GE. Both were published by you on 5 October 2019.

The post and article contain falsehoods.

For example, they incorrectly assert that Ministers can use POFMA during the elections to restrict and curtail online content.

The Act states that for the entire election period Ministers cease to exercise their powers under POFMA. Instead, senior civil servants are appointed as the Ministers’ alternate authorities for the election period.

The robust safeguards on the use of POFMA will continue to be in place during the elections.

It is disingenuous to talk about the need for voters to know “what actually happened”, while suggesting that falsehoods should be allowed to go unaddressed during an election period.

Links: (FB post: https://bit.ly/2McXtAI) (Article: https://bit.ly/31RgmzM)

At this point, my head really hurts from all the reading and thinking, but Terry Xu has one more reply.

6 October 2019, Terry Xu’s Facebook Post 4 Hours After MCI-MinLaw’s Reply

Here he says he disagrees with the statements, and also says that those pieces are opinions that POFMA could potentially be abused. (Probably to protect his posts since POFMA doesn’t cover opinions, criticisms, satire or parody.)

And then bring more questions by saying the PAP ministers can choose the civil servants to exercise the powers of POFMA.

So… Now What?

As a wise man once said, “don’t look to Facebook for your news”. I think it’s probably more constructive to throw 100-page report papers at each other rather than Facebook arguments.

(Of course, no one will read that, but at least writers like me won’t have headaches trying to cover every might-be-will-be post that is mostly ambiguous.)

For a proper conclusion to this drama, we probably have to wait a loooong time.