TOC’s Response to POFMA Order: Misusing State Powers to Silence Public Inquiry
#1

TOC’s Response to POFMA Order: Misusing State Powers to Silence Public Inquiry 

On 25 Feb 2025, TOC was issued a POFMA Correction Direction over its report on Minister Shanmugam’s Ridout Road tenancy. Despite months of inquiries, he never responded. Instead of addressing key concerns, the govt compels TOC to label its reporting false—silencing scrutiny, not ensuring transparency.

https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2025/02...c-inquiry/
Reply
#2

TOC's Response to POFMA Order: Misusing State Powers to Silence Public Inquiry
 
Source: The Online Citizen (TOC), Published: 2025-02-26
 
Theme: TOC criticizes the Singapore government's use of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) to silence public inquiry and prevent scrutiny of Minister Shanmugam's Ridout Road tenancy.
 
Core Points:
 
- TOC was issued a POFMA Correction Direction on February 25, 2025, regarding its report on Minister Shanmugam's tenancy at 26 Ridout Road.
 
- Despite months of inquiries, Minister Shanmugam never responded to TOC's requests for clarification.
 
- TOC argues that the government's use of POFMA in this case is not about correcting falsehoods, but about silencing legitimate public interest inquiries.
 
- TOC claims that Minister Edwin Tong's clarification reinforces, rather than refutes, the issue of potential lease extension for Minister Shanmugam.
 
- TOC raises several key issues that remain unanswered, including the transparency of the lease renewal process, the lack of public bidding, the approvals for extensive modifications to the state-owned property, and the potential for conflicts of interest.
 
- TOC argues that the government's use of POFMA is a tool for censorship, not transparency, and that the public deserves full transparency and accountability.
 
Phenomenon:
 
This article highlights the ongoing debate surrounding the use of POFMA in Singapore, with TOC presenting its perspective on the matter. The article portrays POFMA as a tool for silencing critical voices and preventing scrutiny of government officials, while the government maintains that it is a necessary measure to combat online falsehoods and misinformation.
 
Additional Notes:
 
- The article provides specific examples of the questions that remain unanswered and the inconsistencies in the government's response.
 
- TOC emphasizes its commitment to asking tough questions and holding those in power accountable, despite the use of POFMA against them.
 
- The article further argues that the public deserves transparency and answers to their concerns, not censorship.
Reply
#3

We all want to know who is the buyer what's so special in this case high time to change the system to be more transparent no wonder Yankees shun sinkapore democracy as fake
[+] 3 users Like A2Z's post
Reply
#4

LHY already said State Organs were used against him

I am sure all Opposition Parties also kena from CURRENT PAP, lah

Wear white outside but they are actually Black Inside

esp they have so much $$ and Power

Even abusing Parliament for Oxley Property Fight

Why do we need 5 Mayors and 80 PAP Ministers? 
[+] 1 user Likes Ola's post
Reply
#5

(26-02-2025, 08:57 AM)A2Z Wrote:  We all want to know who is the buyer what's so special in this case high time to change the system to be more transparent no wonder Yankees shun sinkapore democracy as fake
Hv to face facts and truths. POFMA is of double standards. Is more for self entitlements and self benefits like backup protections. Many a times, it does not face true realities and sounds more like silencing the lambs. I didn't come across any other countries having such POFMA ruling.
[+] 1 user Likes Gemstar's post
Reply
#6

(26-02-2025, 12:24 PM)Gemstar Wrote:  Hv to face facts and truths. POFMA is of double standards. Is more for self entitlements and self benefits like backup protections. Many a times, it does not face true realities and sounds more like silencing the lambs. I didn't come across any other countries having such POFMA ruling.



PAP using national resources to protect themselves all the time 

They must have done alot of bad job with poor performance 

1) Armour = Constitution

2) Sword= POFMA 

3) Army = Generals/ Colonel parachuted into high positions

4) Solders = YES MEN Ministers

5) Wall = Parliament wayang house

Why do we need 5 Mayors and 80 PAP Ministers? 
[+] 1 user Likes Ola's post
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)