The Online Citizen complies with the 26 March 2026 POFMA Direction as required by law. Compliance does not constitute agreement. Our article analysed parliamentary answers, legal frameworks and enforcement patterns, drawing analytical inferences from observable conduct. This response explains why such analysis should not be characterised as false statements of fact.
The Online Citizen has been served a Correction Direction (POFMA-DC-2026-03-01) dated 26 March 2026 by the POFMA Office, issued under the authority of the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs, K Shanmugam.
As required by law, we are complying with the Direction by publishing the prescribed correction notices on this website, our social media platforms, and in The Straits Times.
Compliance with a direction is not agreement with it. The Act does not require us to accept that the direction is correct — only to carry the prescribed notice. We do not accept that the subject statements in our article of 5 March 2026 constitute false statements of fact. Our reasons are set out below.
The Direction identifies six Subject Statements allegedly made in our 5 March article, "The Art of Saying Everything While Confirming Nothing." Before addressing each, we note a structural issue common to all six: the Direction converts analytical inferences drawn from publicly observable conduct into assertions of direct fact, and then...
Myung Tae-kyun on the 26th told Democratic Party of Korea’s North Chungcheong Governor candidate Shin Yong-han, “If you feel wronged, sue me for defamation.” Myung stated, “Shin claimed we should ...