"SDP complies with POFMA order but will apply to cancel correction directions
SINGAPORE: The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) has complied with Correction Directions (CDs) issued under online falsehoods legislation but it also said it will be applying to cancel the directions.
On Saturday (Dec 14), the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Office was instructed by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to issue CDs to the SDP. The subject of the orders was two Facebook posts and an article related to employment trends affecting professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs).
SDP said its statement was based on a report in The Straits Times (ST) which said PMETs made up a rising share of retrenched locals, mentioning this line in the newspaper's article: “Professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) made up about three in four or 76 per cent of the locals - Singaporeans and permanent residents - who were retrenched last year, the highest figure in at least a decade.”
SDP also referred to a graphic within the ST article that was titled: PMETs make up growing share of locals laid off.
SDP said MOM should take the matter up with the ST. "If the ST states that its information, or the interpretation of it, is incorrect, we would be happy to amend our statement correspondingly,” SDP said on Sunday in its response.
It also said that as the ST is a "government-controlled" newspaper, "we have no reason to believe it would publish fake news about the government"."
Honestly, this POFMA thingy is being used thus far 3 times in the last 1 week plus. 1 against an opposition membet. 1 against a known activist alternative FB site. N now directly on an opposition political FB site.
The 1st, there was no opposition. The Correction Order (CO) was complied with.
The 2nd case, the site publisher ignored the CO, n FB was asked to put the CO.
This one is the 1st time the CO has been challenged! N based on what has been reported in the news above, how do the gov Ministers decide if the "falsehood" was supposedly based on published data n information fr another source that weren't classified as "falsehood"!!
An own goal by the gov here?
Or the gov has to POFMAed the original author(s) of data n information quoted by subsequent publishers??
Interesting development that everyone will b keen to find out!
Is POFMA a sadly misguided piece of legislation?
SINGAPORE: The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) has complied with Correction Directions (CDs) issued under online falsehoods legislation but it also said it will be applying to cancel the directions.
On Saturday (Dec 14), the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Office was instructed by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to issue CDs to the SDP. The subject of the orders was two Facebook posts and an article related to employment trends affecting professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs).
SDP said its statement was based on a report in The Straits Times (ST) which said PMETs made up a rising share of retrenched locals, mentioning this line in the newspaper's article: “Professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) made up about three in four or 76 per cent of the locals - Singaporeans and permanent residents - who were retrenched last year, the highest figure in at least a decade.”
SDP also referred to a graphic within the ST article that was titled: PMETs make up growing share of locals laid off.
SDP said MOM should take the matter up with the ST. "If the ST states that its information, or the interpretation of it, is incorrect, we would be happy to amend our statement correspondingly,” SDP said on Sunday in its response.
It also said that as the ST is a "government-controlled" newspaper, "we have no reason to believe it would publish fake news about the government"."
Honestly, this POFMA thingy is being used thus far 3 times in the last 1 week plus. 1 against an opposition membet. 1 against a known activist alternative FB site. N now directly on an opposition political FB site.
The 1st, there was no opposition. The Correction Order (CO) was complied with.
The 2nd case, the site publisher ignored the CO, n FB was asked to put the CO.
This one is the 1st time the CO has been challenged! N based on what has been reported in the news above, how do the gov Ministers decide if the "falsehood" was supposedly based on published data n information fr another source that weren't classified as "falsehood"!!
An own goal by the gov here?
Or the gov has to POFMAed the original author(s) of data n information quoted by subsequent publishers??
Interesting development that everyone will b keen to find out!
Is POFMA a sadly misguided piece of legislation?
No comments:
Post a Comment