Clarification by Minister for Communications and Information

In each and every case, the Minister, advised by his officials, has had to ascertain that there was a falsehood in accordance with our existing law. Second, he or she has had to be satisfied that there is a public interest requirement. Third, they have explained clearly – each Ministry in each of its Directions, it has issued a clear clarification as to what the falsehood is and why POFMA is being used, and that includes, therefore, a broad explanation as to what is the public interest consideration, which is encompassed in there. And thereafter, avenues of appeal are available to the Minister, as indeed some have chosen to exercise and the recourse to Courts is also available.

So, if you look at it in its totality, I think there is proportionality, there is fit for purpose and we have taken actions according to the situation as warranted.

The Member has asked about the public interest rationale according to section 7. The fact of the matter is, and if you read the section carefully, it starts by saying "without detracting from the generality” of the point of “public interest", and then proceeds to list a few examples. Those are intended to be illustrative but they are not exhaustive. What that means therefore is when the Act is exercised, the clarification and the explanation given in that clarification notice by the Minister will have the evidence to support the public interest case. [Please refer to "Measuring Public Interest Threshold and Maintaining Public Trust Under Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Framework", Official Report, 6 January 2020, Vol 94, Issue No 115, Oral Answers to Questions section.]

*Written statement by Mr S Iswaran circulated with leave of Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in accordance with Standing Order No 29 (5): (proc text)]

After my statement during Question Time for the Parliamentary Question “Measuring Public Interest Threshold and Maintaining Public Trust Under Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Framework" at the Sitting of 6 January 2020, I wish to make the following factual correction. My reply should read as follows:

In each and every case, the Minister, advised by his officials, has had to ascertain that there was a falsehood in accordance with our existing law. Second, he or she has had to be satisfied that there is a public interest requirement. Third, they have explained clearly – each Ministry in each of its Directions, it has issued a clear clarification as to what the falsehood is and why POFMA is being used, and that includes, therefore, a broad explanation as to what is the consideration, which is encompassed in there. And thereafter, avenues of appeal are available to the Minister, as indeed some have chosen to exercise and the recourse to Courts is also available.

So, if you look at it in its totality, I think there is proportionality, there is fit for purpose and we have taken actions according to the situation as warranted.

The Member has asked about the public interest rationale according to section 7. The fact of the matter is, and if you read the section carefully, it starts by saying "without detracting from the generality” of the point of “public interest", and then proceeds to list a few examples. Those are intended to be illustrative but they are not exhaustive. When the Act is exercised, the clarification and the explanation given in that clarification notice by the Minister will set out why POFMA is used. That includes an express statement, as required by POFMA, that the Minister is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to issue the Direction.