SINGAPORE: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said on Thursday (Oct 31) that it does not target individuals or organisations for speaking out against the death penalty.
But when false statements are made about government policy, which is a matter of significant public interest, it is important readers know that what they are reading is considered false by the government, it added.
The ministry was responding to CNA’s queries after activist Kokila Annamalai said she will not comply with a correction direction for her posts on Facebook and X on Oct 2 and Oct 3.
The posts had falsely stated that “the government schedules and stays executions arbitrarily and without regard for due legal process, and that the state does not bear the legal burden of proving a drug trafficking charge against the accused person”, said MHA.
MHA said it has already referred Ms Annamalai to the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Office for investigations into her non-compliance.
Complying with a correction direction does not involve taking down original false statements, MHA explained. Instead, the government’s position is linked to the original statements through a correction notice. This is to alert readers and allow them to make their own judgments on truth and falsehoods.
If the government puts out an untenable position, the government’s credibility will suffer, it added. If the writer believes that she did not put out falsehoods, the POFMA Order can also be challenged in court.
“Ms Annamalai’s false statements relate to the criminal justice system. Her intent is to undermine public confidence in public institutions, in particular the criminal justice system. She is entitled to do so, based on facts., ” said MHA.
“But where she does so based on falsehoods, the government is entitled to a right of response.”
It added that the Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), an activist group that campaigns against the death penalty and which Ms Annamalai has been working with, has on past occasions communicated similar falsehoods.
The government is therefore entitled under law to require Ms Annamalai to indicate that her statements have been the subject of a POFMA Order.
MHA said that this “promotes transparency, and a debate based on facts”.
“What Ms Annamalai is saying is that she should be able to set out falsehoods, to mislead the public (and thereby be allowed to affect public interest) without the public being alerted to her falsehoods in an effective way,” added MHA.
“TJC (which put out the falsehoods originally) has complied with the POFMA Orders. Ms Annamalai, who reposted the TJC posts, has chosen not to despite repeated reminders. Neither has she sought to legally challenge the Order.”
It also said that contrary to what Ms Annamalai suggested, the POFMA Order issued to her does not stop her from sharing her views. This is because readers can still read her original posts, consider the government’s clarification alongside them, and come to their own conclusion.
“Ms Annamalai clearly prefers that her audience only be able to read her falsehoods,” said MHA.
