Singapore to block MalaysiaNow for criticising the execution of a Malaysian man
Invoking its anti-fake news law, Singapore has ordered corrections to an article written by the sister of a man who was executed in October. Failure to meet its order will result in access to the site being blocked. The news portal has rejected the order, expressing concern over cross-border censorship.
Singapore (AsiaNews) – The city-state has invoked its controversial anti-fake news law — the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma) — to demand that Malaysian news portal MalaysiaNow insert a series of “corrections” into a recent article on the execution of Malaysian citizen Pannir Selvam Pranthaman, a pastor’s son.
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) sent the portal an elaborate 18-page notice listing what it claims are five “false statements” in the article, which was written by Pannir’s sister, Sangkari Pranthaman.
Her story, “Family of Malaysian prisoner reveals shocking acts of threats, deception before execution in Singapore”, detailed alleged intimidation and deception leading up to Pannir’s execution on Oct 8, nine years after a drug conviction that many rights advocates have described as questionable.
The MHA notice goes far beyond flagging inaccuracies. It contains detailed directions on the exact passages Singapore wants MalaysiaNow to insert into the article, the specific placement of these additions, and the wording of “correction notices” that must accompany related posts on X, Facebook, and LinkedIn.
It also requires these social media posts to be pinned for a stipulated period and linked back to a Singapore government webpage containing what it describes as “corrections regarding false statements” about Pannir’s treatment.
Singapore has demanded that MalaysiaNow comply, warning that “failure to comply with this direction without reasonable excuse is an offence under Section 15 of the Act,” a provision that could allow the government to block access to the portal within Singapore.
MalaysiaNow immediately rejected the order. Editor Abdar Rahman Koya described the request as “baffling, even amusing,” adding that it was unrealistic for Singapore to expect a Malaysian media outlet to comply with such detailed instructions. “We do not take instructions from our own government; what makes them think we would take instructions from them?” he said.
Legal experts in Malaysia have long warned that Pofma opens the door for Singapore to apply its domestic laws beyond its borders, effectively encroaching on Malaysia’s sovereignty.
This latest confrontation mirrors the 2020 case involving Lawyers for Liberty (LFL), when Singapore demanded the Malaysian rights group publish a “correction notice” on its website. LFL refused, prompting Singapore to order local internet service providers to block access to the site for users in the republic.
LFL challenged the directive in Malaysian courts, and last year the Federal Court ruled that Singapore’s action raised serious constitutional questions – including whether foreign laws could override rights guaranteed under Malaysia’s Federal Constitution. The court referred the matter to the High Court for determination.
Under Pofma, individuals can face fines of up to S$ 20,000 or imprisonment for up to 12 months, while organisations may be fined as much as S$ 500,000. These heavy penalties have led many Singapore-based bloggers and media outlets to comply quickly with government notices.
Singapore’s attempt to compel a Malaysian news portal to alter its reporting is expected to intensify debate over cross-border censorship, regional press freedom, and the city-state’s increasingly assertive use of Pofma outside its own jurisdiction.
.png)
05/08/2024 16:35
