DOCSLIB.ORG

The Politics of Pofma: Assessing the Validity of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Misinformation Act

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Politics of Pofma: Assessing the Validity of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Misinformation Act THE POLITICS OF POFMA: ASSESSING THE VALIDITY OF THE PROTECTION FROM ONLINE FALSEHOODS AND MISINFORMATION ACT Grace Elizabeth Ho, Raffles Institution Supervised by Professor Edson C. Tandoc Jr. & Mr. James Lee Chong Boi, Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University ABSTRACT In 2019, the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Misinformation Act (POFMA) was enacted to fight against the rapid spread of fake news, which has become more pervasive than ever in today’s post-truth era. It grants the government and its ministers the power to issue directives, or correction orders, to append statements of fact from the government alongside offending pieces of online content, which have been deemed to contain falsehoods. However, the validity of such an act has been called into question by many critics, who fear that it may become a state tool of censorship. Thus, my paper seeks to analyze the validity of POFMA, through creating a typography of the type of content likely to be served with POFMA directives, and evaluating the arguments presented in both offending posts and the POFMA directives. INTRODUCTION In the book “Post-Truth, Fake News And Democracy: Mapping the Politics of Falsehood,” researchers Jannick Shou and Johan Farkas write that proliferation of fake news has resulted in “scientific evidence [being] no longer trusted, with climate change being consistently labeled a hoax; medical evidence [being] sidestepped, as patients search for their own truth online; and “proper” journalism [coming] under attack from fake news farms, troll factories and social bots” (Farkas & Schou, 2019). In today’s post-truth era, fake news has become a tool to sow confusion, with many people being unable to discern fact from fiction. Nearly one in three Americans have seen a piece of fake political news online, with two in three of them saying that fabricated news stories have caused “a great deal of confusion” about the basic facts of current issues and events (Barthel, Mitchell & Holcomb, 2016). A similar trend can be found locally in Singapore, as a BBC study revealed that 59% of Singaporeans respondents found it difficult to distinguish fake news and real news (Chua, 2017), and another Ipsos study alarmingly found that 91% of Singaporeans between the ages of 15 and 65 incorrectly identified one or more pieces of fake news as being real (Ipsos, 2018). Worsening this issue of fake news is the rise of new media, including social media and alternative sources of information such as blogs, which has accelerated the already-rapid spread of fake news by creating a gross oversupply of facts. Consumers are deluged with too much information from a diverse range of sources, with varying levels of authenticity, overwhelming them entirely (Davies, 2016). In this highly oversaturated environment, it is consequently very easy for fake news to pass unnoticed as real news, and end up becoming a part of people’s worldviews. In response, numerous governments have tabled bills to criminalize its proliferation, to varying degrees of success: while some have been blocked on various grounds, they have been successful in others countries. Singapore is one such country with the Protection From Online Falsehoods and Misinformation Act (POFMA) being passed by parliament on May 8 and coming into effect on October 2. Comprising 62 sections, the purpose of the Act is two-fold: one, to prevent the online spread of falsehoods, which includes misleading information or false statements of fact, and two, to safeguard against the use of online platforms, particularly social media, for the communication of such falsehoods. Statements of fact that fall under the purview of the law are defined as “statements, which a reasonable person seeing, hearing or otherwise perceiving them would consider as representations of fact” (SSO, 2019). From the get-go, the bill received considerable backlash and disapproval, with a multitude of stakeholders criticizing the unilateral, unopposed powers of government ministers. Jeff Paine, the Managing Director of Asia Internet Coalition, released a statement on behalf of the organization to express worry about the high possibility of government overreach, “We are also concerned that the proposed legislation gives the Singapore government full discretion over what is considered true or false. As the most far-reaching legislation of its kind to date, this level of overreach poses significant risks to freedom of expression and speech, and could have severe ramifications both in Singapore and around the world” (Asia Internet Coalition, 2019). Human Rights Watch expressed a similar sentiment in their news release. Commenting about the bill, Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director said, “Singapore’s ministers should not have the power to single-handedly decree what is true and what is false. Given Singapore’s long history of prohibiting speech critical of the government, its policies or its officials, its professed concerns about ‘online falsehoods’ and alleged election manipulation are farcical (Human Rights Watch, 2019).” The international response to POFMA was cold. The Economist adopted a scathing stance against POFMA in its article “Singapore Strikes Its First Official Blows Against Fake News” (The Economist, 2019), suggesting that it “adds to the government’s criticism-suppressing arsenal”. Across the Atlantic, the Guardian collaborated with Reuters on the article “Singapore Fake News Law A ‘Disaster’ for Freedom of Speech, Says Rights Group” (The Guardian, 2019), in which they report on several leading critics’ reasons for rejecting the bill. The International Court of Justice’s Asia Pacific director argued that there are very “real risks that it will be misused to clamp down on the free exchange and expression of opinions and information”. The exact problem with POFMA was elucidated by University of Michigan professor Linda Lim in the Financial Times piece “Singapore ‘falsehoods’ Law Shows Perils of Fake News Fight'' (Palma, Munshi & Reed, 2020), “The distinction between ‘fact’ and ‘opinion’ is not always clear and the injury to the public interest is not convincingly demonstrated”. Chong Ja Ian, who is an associate professor of political science at the National University of Singapore, goes as far as to draw parallels to maximum governments, “Singapore has inadvertently put itself in the same league as regimes that can be a little bit excessively”. Collectively, these reports across a variety of news organizations demonstrate that there is significant pushback against POFMA from all walks of life on a diverse spectrum of reasons, calling the necessity and validity of such legislation into serious question. Ergo, my project seeks to investigate the validity of the usage of the Protection From Online Falsehoods and Misinformation Act (POFMA) in Singapore. I seek to do a qualitative content analysis on POFMA’s invocations, in order to answer these research questions: RQ1: What are the characteristics of offending posts served with POFMA directives? RQ2: To what extent is the content of offending posts accurate? RQ3: Can the “accurate facts” presented in POFMA directives be corroborated by publicly available evidence? By the project’s conclusion, I seek to shed light on whether POFMA in its execution fulfils its intended goals. LITERATURE REVIEW What is Fake News? “Fake news” is broadly defined as news articles that are intentionally and verifiably false, and could mislead readers (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017, p.213). It can take on many forms, such as news satire, news parody, news fabrication, advertising, photo manipulation, and propaganda. Not only do they imitate the look and feel of real news, they are even often part of larger networks of fake news sites to give off the illusion of a wide audience readership. Essentially, their seemingly credible appearance allows them to hide behind a veneer of legitimacy, undermining the credibility of authentic and real news (Tandoc, Lim & Ling, 2017). In this study, however, I am particularly focused on fake news that is produced with malicious intent, that means to say, it has the potential capacity to mislead and cloud people’s judgement. Addressing the Issue of Fake News Different countries have adopted different approaches to tackle this issue of fake news, ranging from inaction to moderate prosecution, such as fines (Huang, 2020) and imprisonment (Novak, 2018), to harsh crackdowns, including blocking access to social media sites (Reporters Without Borders, 2020) and shutting down internet service providers entirely (Access Now, 2018). Generally, the more extreme punishments tend to be undertaken by relatively more authoritarian governments. Arrests & Shutting down Inaction Fines Imprisonment ISPs entirely Lenient Extensive Media Literacy Takedown of Social Media Fake News Sites Shutdown Extent of Government Intervention in the Issue of Fake News (Poynter, n.d.) Past Research on POFMA With only one year since its inception, the Act is still in its infancy stage and thus, research on it is scarce. Although Teo Kai Xiang (Teo, n.d.) has been classifying POFMA invocations on his website, this is only a surface level categorization of POFMA cases, such as the medium of content, and type of government response (e.g. Part 3, Part 4, or Part 5 direction) without substantial analysis into the content of the offending posts. METHODOLOGY This study utilizes a qualitative content analysis to analyze the news articles, social media posts, and YouTube videos that have been served with POFMA directives, as well as the POFMA directives themselves, with the aim of understanding how the Government utilizes the corrective powers of POFMA. The creation of this typology is the key precursor to evaluating whether the information labelled as “fake news” by the Government accurately constitutes as such. Combing through Factually, which is the official government database keeping record of all POFMA correction orders issued, I have found 70 unique pieces of content that have been served with POFMA correction orders between November 2019 and July 2020, which was the period of my data collection.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Singapore's Chinese-Speaking and Their Perspectives on Merger
    Chinese Southern Diaspora Studies, Volume 5, 2011-12 南方華裔研究雜志, 第五卷, 2011-12 “Flesh and Bone Reunite as One Body”: Singapore’s Chinese- speaking and their Perspectives on Merger ©2012 Thum Ping Tjin* Abstract Singapore’s Chinese speakers played the determining role in Singapore’s merger with the Federation. Yet the historiography is silent on their perspectives, values, and assumptions. Using contemporary Chinese- language sources, this article argues that in approaching merger, the Chinese were chiefly concerned with livelihoods, education, and citizenship rights; saw themselves as deserving of an equal place in Malaya; conceived of a new, distinctive, multiethnic Malayan identity; and rejected communist ideology. Meanwhile, the leaders of UMNO were intent on preserving their electoral dominance and the special position of Malays in the Federation. Finally, the leaders of the PAP were desperate to retain power and needed the Federation to remove their political opponents. The interaction of these three factors explains the shape, structure, and timing of merger. This article also sheds light on the ambiguity inherent in the transfer of power and the difficulties of national identity formation in a multiethnic state. Keywords: Chinese-language politics in Singapore; History of Malaya; the merger of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya; Decolonisation Introduction Singapore’s merger with the Federation of Malaya is one of the most pivotal events in the country’s history. This process was determined by the ballot box – two general elections, two by-elections, and a referendum on merger in four years. The centrality of the vote to this process meant that Singapore’s Chinese-speaking1 residents, as the vast majority of the colony’s residents, played the determining role.
    [Show full text]
  • 新加坡华族之多元性国际会议 Diversity and Singapore Ethnic Chinese Communities International Conference
    新 加 坡 华 族 之 多 元 新加坡 性 国 际 华族之多元性 会 议 论 国际会议论文集 文 集 ETHNIC CHINESE COMMUNITIES DIVERSITY AND SINGAPORE DIVERSITY AND SINGAPORE ETHNIC CHINESE COMMUNITIES INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE Edited by Koh Khee Heong Ong Chang Woei Phua Chiew Pheng Chong Ja Ian Yang Yan ISBN 978-981-14-5149-2 新加坡 华族之多元性 国际会议论文集 DIVERSITY AND SINGAPORE ETHNIC CHINESE COMMUNITIES INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE Edited by Koh Khee Heong Ong Chang Woei Phua Chiew Pheng Chong Ja Ian Yang Yan Copyright © Singapore Chinese Cultural Centre and Department of Chinese Studies, National University of Singapore, 2020 Published by City Book Room 420 North Bridge Road #03-10 North Bridge Centre Singapore 188727 Email: [email protected] ISBN: 978-981-14-4998-7 (paper) ISBN: 978-981-14-5149-2 (e-book) All rights reserved. No part of the publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, without the prior written permission of the publishers of this book. Cover design and layout by Ho Siew Yuen Printed by Ho Printing, Singapore National Library Board, Singapore Cataloguing in Publication Data Name(s): Diversity and Singapore Ethnic Chinese Communities International Conference (1st: 2019: Singapore) | Koh, Khee Heong, editor. | Ong, Chang Woei, 1970- editor. | Phua, Chiew Pheng, editor. | Chong, Ja Ian, editor. | Yang, Yan, editor. Title: Diversity and Singapore ethnic Chinese Communities International Conference = Xinjiapo hua zu zhi duo yuan xing guo ji hui yi lun wen ji / edited by Koh Khee Heong, Ong Chang Woei, Phua Chiew Pheng, Chong Ja Ian, Yang Yan.
    [Show full text]
  • United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review 38TH SESSION of the UPR WORKING GROUP (3 – 14 MAY 2021) Contribu
    United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review 38TH SESSION OF THE UPR WORKING GROUP (3 – 14 MAY 2021) Contribution by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) an NGO with special consultative status, on press freedom and the freedom to inform in Singapore 1. Summary of the press freedom situation The press freedom situation in Singapore further declined in 2020. According to the World Press Freedom Index established by RSF, in which Singapore now ranks 158 out of 180 countries after dropping seven places in a year’s time, the situation is now classified as “very bad”. This deterioration was largely propelled by the adoption of an “anti-fake news” law that allows the government the power to determine whether statements made online are true or false by ordering media outlets, digital platforms, and ordinary users to publish mandated “corrections”, or to remove access to the content completely. This latest piece of legislation further exacerbates an already poor situation, in which the People’s Action Party government has access to broad powers to censor journalistic content or apply pressure on mainstream media outlets. Powerful politicians have been known to use defamation suits to silence critics and political opponents. Vague and ambiguous “OB markers” (for out-of-bounds markers) keep journalists and Singaporeans in a state of uncertainty, encouraging fear and self-censorship. During its second review in 2016, Singapore accepted one hundred and seventeen (117) recommendations. Among these recommendations, Singapore accepted only a few recommendations related to freedom of expression1, and none affecting specifically the media, despite the fact that several States had made recommendations in direct relation to the freedom of the media2, including the removal of discriminatory media guidelines, the reform of the regime of defamation offences, the elimination of media censorship, and the prevention of self-censorship.
    [Show full text]
  • Appellant's Contact Dr Thum Ping Tjin Email: Pingtjin.Thum@Newnaratif
    Appellant’s Contact Dr Thum Ping Tjin Email: [email protected] 9 May 2018 Mr Heng Swee Keat Minister for Finance #10-01 and #06-03 The Treasury 100 High Street Singapore 179434 By Email, Fax (6337 4134) & Hand Dear Sirs, APPEAL AGAINST REJECTION OF NAME APPLICATION BY “OSEA PTE LTD” 1. We refer to the rejection of the abovementioned name application (transaction no. ) (the “Application”) by the Registrar of Companies, under the purview of the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (“ACRA”) on 11 April 2018. 2. The Application was made by the director designate of OSEA Pte Ltd, Dr Thum Ping Tjin, on 8 February 2018. OSEA Pte Ltd was to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Observatory Southeast Asia Limited (“OSEA UK”), a company incorporated in the United Kingdom. At present, OSEA UK owns and manages the New Naratif website (www.newnaratif.com). 3. OSEA Pte Ltd’s planned activities would have included organising discussion fora, workshops, and other events in Singapore, such as “Democracy Classroom” sessions. OSEA Pte Ltd would also have provided editorial services to New Naratif. 4. We make our appeal against the rejection of the Application pursuant to Section 27(12C) of the Companies Act. 5. In its rejection email dated 11 April 2018 to the registered filing agent for the Application, ACRA cited Section 27(12A) of the Companies Act as its basis for doing so, in the following terms: “Your application for OSEA PTE. LTD. has been rejected due to s27(12A) of the Companies Act. Thank you.” 6. We note that the Section 27(12A) of the Companies Act states: “The Registrar must refuse to approve an application to reserve a name […] as the name of an intended company if the Registrar is satisfied that — 1 (a) the name is for a company that is likely to be used for an unlawful purpose or for purposes prejudicial to public peace, welfare or Good order in SinGapore; or (b) it would be contrary to the national security or interest for the company to be registered.” 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Written Representation 83 Name: Thum Ping Tjin Historian and Also the Founder, Managing Director, and Research Director of New N
    Written Representation 83 Name: Thum Ping Tjin Historian and also the founder, Managing Director, and Research Director of New Naratif. Research Fellow in History and Coordinator of Project Southeast Asia at the University of Oxford (2014-present) Received: 28 Feb 2018 Submission to the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, Parliament of Singapore Dr. Thum Ping Tjin 26 February 2018 Summary The definition of deliberate online falsehoods (or “fake news”) is extremely ambiguous. Sources are difficult to trace, difficult to prosecute, and domestic legislation will not stop foreign actors outside of Singapore. New legislation is not necessary as there is already existing legislation which can address “fake news”, and anyway there is already a surfeit of laws in Singapore which suppress free speech. Most of all, “fake news” has not, historically, had much of an impact in Singapore — with one major exception: the People’s Action Party government has, historically, spread “fake news” for narrow party-political gain. Given these problems, any solution to the problem of “fake news” must therefore start with the education of Singaporeans to be more skeptical of all information, regardless of source; the diversification of responsible news sources; and greater transparency in government and accountability for those in official positions. Accordingly, the chief measures recommended to combat “fake news” are: 1. The focusing of media literacy education on teaching Singaporeans to understand how the information industry works, to be politically aware, and to be skeptical of all information, regardless of source; 2. The repeal of the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act 1974, and reform/repeal of other laws which suppress free speech; 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Empowering Possibilities with More Reasons to Smile
    EMPOWERING POSSIBILITESPOSSIBILITIES WITHWITH AA SMILESMILE AnnualAnnual ReportReport 2017/182017/18 INFOCOMM MEDIA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EMPOWERING POSSIBILITIES WITH MORE REASONS TO SMILE INFOCOMM MEDIA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2O17/18 021 EMPOWERING POSSIBILITESPOSSIBILITIES WITHWITH AA SMILESMILE AnnualAnnual ReportReport 2017/182017/18 INFOCOMM MEDIA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ABOUT IMDA The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) leads Singapore’s digital transformation with infocomm media. To do this, IMDA will develop a dynamic digital economy and a cohesive digital society, driven by an exceptional infocomm media (ICM) ecosystem – by developing talent, strengthening business capabilities, and enhancing Singapore’s ICM infrastructure. IMDA also regulates the telecommunications and media sectors to safeguard consumer interests while fostering a pro-business environment, and enhances Singapore’s data protection regime through the Personal Data Protection Commission. FOREWORD IMDA’s inaugural annual report captures our achievements and VISION milestones of the past year, and how it has worked to unify Singapore’s digitalisation efforts. Whether it is providing help for A dynamic Digital Economy and a cohesive Digital Society, driven different industries to jumpstart their digitalisation journeys, or by an exceptional infocomm and media ecosystem. creating new ecosystems, opportunities and capabilities for our digital future, IMDA is moving ahead with industries and people, to be a leading global node in Asia for this digital economy. MISSION Drive Singapore’s digital transformation with infocomm media. VALUES • Integrity • Collaboration • Innovation • Care & Respect 022 EMPOWERING POSSIBILITESPOSSIBILITIES WITHWITH AA SMILESMILE AnnualAnnual ReportReport 2017/182017/18 INFOCOMM MEDIA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Creating Opportunities for More, Developing Nurturing digital talent in our community is CHAIRMAN’S the Next Generation of Future-Ready People a key element of being digitally ready.
    [Show full text]
  • China and the “Singapore Model”
    January 2016, Volume 27, Number 1 $14.00 The Authoritarian Threat Christopher Walker Lucan Way Ethiopia’s 100% Election Leonardo R. Arriola and Terrence Lyons Simegnish Yekoye Mengesha What’s Wrong with East-Central Europe? James Dawson and Seán Hanley Ivan Krastev Nancy Bermeo on Democratic Backsliding Stephan Ortmann & Mark R. Thompson on the “Singapore Model” Neil DeVotta on Sri Lanka Alfred Stepan on Leaders of Transitions The Quest for Good Governance Alina Mungiu-Pippidi Alexander Kupatadze Christian Goebel Daniel Buquet and Rafael Pi~neiro Thompson.NEW saved by BK on 11/16/15; 3,907 words, including notes. TXT saved from NEW by TB on 11/23/15; 3,726 words. MP edits added by TB on 11/30/15; 3,769 words. AAS saved from author email by TB on 12/7/15 3,782 words. FIN saved from AAS by TB on 12/7/15 and finalized per author email on 12/8/15. PGS created by BK on 12/8/15. CHINA AND THE “SINGAPORE MODEL” Stephan Ortmann and Mark R. Thompson Stephan Ortmann is assistant professor of political economy at the City University of Hong Kong. His most recent book is Politics and Change in Singapore and Hong Kong: Containing Contention (2010). Mark R. Thompson is acting head of the Department of Asian and In- ternational Studies and director of the Southeast Asia Research Centre at the City University of Hong Kong. In 2007–2008, he was Lee Kong Chian Distinguished Fellow for Southeast Asian Studies at Stanford University and the National University of Singapore.
    [Show full text]
  • The British Intelligence Community in Singapore, 1946-1959: Local
    The British intelligence community in Singapore, 1946-1959: Local security, regional coordination and the Cold War in the Far East Alexander Nicholas Shaw Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of PhD The University of Leeds, School of History January 2019 The candidate confirms that the work submitted is his own and that appropriate credit has been given where reference has been made to the work of others. This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. The right of Alexander Nicholas Shaw to be identified as Author of this work has been asserted by Alexander Nicholas Shaw in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Acknowledgements I would like to thank all those who have supported me during this project. Firstly, to my funders, the White Rose College of the Arts and Humanities and the Arts and Humanities Research Council. Caryn Douglas and Clare Meadley have always been most encouraging and have never stinted in supplying sausage rolls. At Leeds, I am grateful to my supervisors Simon Ball, Adam Cathcart and, prior to his retirement, Martin Thornton. Emma Chippendale and Joanna Phillips have been invaluable guides in navigating the waters of PhD admin. In Durham, I am indebted to Francis Gotto from Palace Green Library and the Oriental Museum’s Craig Barclay and Rachel Barclay. I never expected to end up curating an exhibition of Asian art when I started researching British intelligence, but Rachel and Craig made that happen.
    [Show full text]
  • Singapore Joint Submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review 38Th Session of the UPR Working Group
    Republic of Singapore Joint Submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review 38th Session of the UPR Working Group 15 October 2020 Submission by CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, NGO in General Consultative Status with ECOSOC And The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) NGO in General Consultative Status with ECOSOC CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen FORUM ASIA Participation FORUM-ASIA Lead, Ahmed Adam CIVICUS UPR Lead, Josef Benedict Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Tel: +66 2 1082643 45 Susan Wilding, Web: www.forum-asia.org Email: [email protected] Tel: +41 22 733 3435 Web: www.civicus.org 1. Introduction 1.1 CIVICUS is a global alliance of civil society organisations (CSOs) and activists dedicated to strengthening citizen action and civil society around the world. Founded in 1993, CIVICUS has members in more than 190 countries throughout the world. 1.2 The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) is a network of 81 members in 21 countries that works to promote and protect human rights, including the right to development, through collaboration and cooperation among human rights organisations and defenders in Asia and beyond. 1.3 In this document, CIVICUS and FORUM-ASIA examine the Government of Singapore’s compliance with its international human rights obligations to create and maintain a safe and enabling environment for civil society. Specifically, we analyse Singapore’s fulfilment of the rights to the freedoms of association, peaceful assembly and expression and unwarranted restrictions on human rights defenders (HRDs) since its previous UPR examination in April 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • The People's Action Party and the Singapore Presidency in 2017 : Understanding the Contradictions Between State Discourse and State Practice
    This document is downloaded from DR‑NTU (https://dr.ntu.edu.sg) Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. The People's Action Party and the Singapore presidency in 2017 : understanding the contradictions between state discourse and state practice Mohamed Nawab Mohamed Osman; Waikar, Prashant 2019 Mohamed Nawab Mohamed Osman, & Waikar, P. (2019). The People's Action Party and the Singapore presidency in 2017 : understanding the contradictions between state discourse and state practice. Asian Survey, 59(2), 382‑405. doi:10.1525/AS.2019.59.2.382 https://hdl.handle.net/10356/142254 https://doi.org/10.1525/AS.2019.59.2.382 Mohamed Nawab Mohamed Osman, & Waikar, P. 2019. The People's Action Party and the Singapore presidency in 2017 : understanding the contradictions between state discourse and state practice. Asian Survey, 59(2), 382‑405. https://doi.org/10.1525/AS.2019.59.2.382 © 2019 by the Regents of the University of California/Sponsoring Society or Association. Downloaded on 26 Sep 2021 20:56:15 SGT MOHAMED NAWAB MOHAMED OSMAN AND PRASHANT WAIKAR The People’s Action Party and the Singapore Presidency in 2017 Understanding the Contradictions between State Discourse and State Practice Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/as/article-pdf/59/2/382/79470/as_2019_59_2_382.pdf by guest on 17 June 2020 ABSTRACT While the Singapore government has sought to construct the elected presidency as an institution critical to Singapore’s political system, the result in fact forces the insti- tution to contradict itself. This paradox has important implications for politics in a post–Lee Hsien Loong Singapore. KEYWORDS: People’s Action Party, Singapore presidential election 2017, state praxes, state discourse, post-Lee Singapore INTRODUCTION In September 2017, Singapore elected Halimah Yacob as the country’s first- ever female president.
    [Show full text]
  • Singapore | Freedom House
    Singapore | Freedom House https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2019/singapore Singapore | Freedom House POLITICAL RIGHTS: 19 / 40 A. ELECTORAL PROCESS: 4 / 12 A1. Was the current head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and fair elections? 1 / 4 The government is led by a prime minister and cabinet formed by the party that controls the legislature. The current prime minster, Lee Hsien Loong, has been in power since 2004 and secured a new mandate after the 2015 parliamentary elections. While polling-day procedures are generally free of irregularities, numerous structural factors impede the development of viable electoral competition. The president, whose role is largely ceremonial, is elected by popular vote for six-year terms, and a special committee is empowered to vet candidates. Under 2016 constitutional amendments on eligibility, none of Singapore’s three main ethnic groupings (Malays, Chinese, and Indians or others) may be excluded from the presidency for more than five consecutive terms, and presidential candidates from the private sector, as opposed to senior officials with at least three years of service, must have experience leading a company with at least S$500 million (US$370 million) in shareholder equity. Only one candidate—Halimah Yacob, backed by the PAP—was declared eligible for the 2017 presidential election, making her the winner by default. A2. Were the current national legislative representatives elected through free and fair elections? 2 / 4 The unicameral Parliament elected in 2015 includes 13 members from single-member constituencies and 76 members from Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs). The top-polling party in each GRC wins all of its three to six seats, which has historically bolstered the majority of the dominant PAP.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2019 Oneapex Limited Annual Report 2019
    ANNUAL REPORT 2019 ONEAPEX LIMITED ANNUAL REPORT 2019 This annual report has been prepared by the Company and reviewed by the Company’s sponsor, Novus Corporate Finance Pte. Ltd. (the “Sponsor”) in compliance with Rule 226(2)(b) of the Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Limited (the “SGX-ST”) Listing Manual Section B: Rules of Catalist. This annual report has not been examined or approved by the SGX- ST and the SGX-ST assumes no responsibility for the contents of this annual report, including the correctness of any of the statements or opinions made or reports contained in this annual report. The contact person for the Sponsor is Mr Pong Chen Yih, Chief Operating Officer, at 9 Raffles Place, #17-05, Republic Plaza Tower 1, Singapore 048619, telephone (65) 6950 2188. Corporate Profile 01 CEO's Statement and Financial Review 02 Corporate Structure 05 Board of Directors 06 Executive Officers 09 Corporate Information 11 Financial Highlights 12 Corporate Governance Report 13 Financial Contents 45 Statistics of Shareholdings 113 Notice of Annual General Meeting 115 Appendix 121 Proxy Form IV ONEAPEX LIMITED ANNUAL REPORT 2019 CORPORATE PROFILE Chew’s Group Limited (the “Company” and together shareholders of the Company to acquire the remaining with its subsidaries the “Group”) was incorporated on issued and paid-up ordinary shares in the capital of the 30 September 2010 and was listed on the Catalist board Company. At the close of offer on 20 November 2018, of the Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Limited Goldhill Trust announced that it owned 78,928,572 (the “SGX-ST”) on 28 February 2011.
    [Show full text]