Ministry of Law Does POFMA deals with facts or interpretations?
Wah. POFMA can now be used to handle "interpretations" and not only "facts". Really? It is getting ridiculous.

Read this report in CNA:

Quote:
“PAP spends S$167 million on Grants & Bursaries for Singaporeans, but S$238 million on foreign students??” wrote Mr Lim, who is representing blogger Leong Sze Hian in a defamation case involving Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

This implies that MOE spends less on Singaporean students than on foreign students, which is "false and misleading", states the Factually article.

The annual budget of MOE is S$13 billion, almost all of which is spent on Singapore citizens, and the S$167 million cited by Mr Lim refers only to bursaries for Singaporean tertiary students.
Unquote:

What Lim Tean said is factually correct. The two figures of $167 million and $238 million are factually correct. What the government objects is the "interpretation" of the facts.

Since when does POFMA law, as it is passed, apply to "interpretations"?

I disagree with the interpretation of the government in addressing the issue. It is clear to me that the government does spend more on the foreign scholars, compared to the local scholars.

I also disagree with the government's approach to lump the full budget of MOE in the comparison. I think they are confusing the issue and misleading the public.

But, hey, this is just my opinion. Each person is entitled to his opinion.

POFMA is bad. And it has been abused against a few parties recently.

Tan Kin Lian

Add Comment

---