Problematic Pofma

This line of reasoning is problematic, and the Ambassador's letter is full of oxymorons.- "The Singapore Government said on Monday (Dec 16) that US publication The Washington Post's refusal to publish its response in full means it is “perpetuating false allegations” in an article about Singapore's online falsehoods law." 

(This thing about the Singapore High Commissioner in London trading words with the Economist over its Dec 7 article, is an entirely different kettle of fish.)

The Washington Post has a right of refusal, but that doesn't mean it's wrong or it's trying to give false impressions. The newspaper can try to do so, but our government shouldn't assume it's insidiously trying to interfere with local politics. Our government cannot assume that readers will be taken in by any false allegations, if any. I can damn well read and judge for myself.

Cat Zakrzewaski's article isn't well written, that, I would opine. Her article was published in The Washington Post on December 2, 2019 titled 'The Technology 202: Facebook issues disclaimer demanded by Singapore government'. It's poorly researched and too brief. She should have interviewed a few more people instead of just taking quotes from the deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch, and given a little bit in-depth analysis to her statements, but she certainly wouldn't be perpetuating false allegations, she's repeating opinions. That is not the mark of a good piece of writing, especially in a respectable paper. Being an American newspaper, this is exactly how they report about international news that affects American business interests and ideals. The problem is, our Government is treating them exactly like how they go after dissenting opinions.

It’s the first time an American tech company is known to have complied with the country's Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), which took effect in October. Singapore's law is one of the most aggressive statutes drafted to date as governments around the world step up their regulation of tech giants. It allows government ministers to order tech companies to issue correction notices or remove material that officials say is false. But critics are concerned the law could open the door to broad government censorship.

IMHO, our Government doesn't need to insist on "transparency" the way they want it. There is transparency already. It's an opinion! Put it on our own national newspapers and our government websites and let us readers form our opinions. Do we need to make a big hoo-ha over it? Is the drama for us or for the Americans? Or bravado? Singaporeans and Residents are free to do our research! Till the Government bans the internet and restrict publications and websites, at least. Our Ministers are collectively ill-equipped to deal with emerging civic discourse, even if those are academic in nature because they don't quite fit the national narrative. And I will always have a problem respecting with Ministers who don't see 'brownface' as a problem (and stupidly say it, like the privileged person she is).

These demands for 'proof' and 'facts' are rather typical of our Government. To use the argument of facts and hold a moral high ground. Please. It's getting tedious. What's new? It seems almost as if the Government can't stand up to any sort of criticism, and like an insecure egoistical narcissist, insists on 'why why why, you can't say that, show me, where's the proof...' et cetera. It's churlish. It tells me that my Government doesn't trust us, the electorate. This is not how it should behave to convince me that it's a Government worth voting for. Your track record means nothing if I can't compare it to an opposition-majority Government. Not rocking the economic boat and sending us into a proverbial recession aren't good enough reasons (for me) to continue voting for the incumbent.

The usage of Pofma (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act) is playing out the way we thought it would. ('we' = tight-knit circle of faeriefolk) The so-far trigger-happy Ministers are giving me the impression that they have a 'quota' to hit or perhaps they should be seen doing their jobs. It's presenting the image of the government going after opinions that they don't like, and infringing on free speech. Even the measured ones. If everything requires point, proof and pertinence, then this is what I expect of our government too, and they aren't doing it. If an incumbent Minister so wishes, I can't even make a sweeping statement like this. Or I phrase everything vaguely.

In his letter to the Letters and Local Opinion editor at the Washington Post, Mr Mirpuri wrote: "Censorship entails banning or suppressing offending material. But the Government has not banned or suppressed anything. It has only required Facebook to append to the offending post a link to a factual correction. 

"The original post remains intact. Readers can read it together with the Government’s response, and decide for themselves which tells the truth. 

"This can no more have 'a chilling effect on online free expression' than your publishing this letter can stun The Washington Post into silence."  

So in the clarification statement to CNA extracted above, Ambassador Mirpuri's reply made me smirk. Oh so many delicious things in there. Do you even know what you wrote? Precisely, Ambassador, precisely. I can read.