Finally, pofma has teeth. It is a done deal. 

After more than one year of roundtable discussion inviting people from all walks of life and expertise to offer their views, and after two days of debate in parliament, it is passed yesterday - largely as first proposed with little or no amendments. 

Our government is indeed a sharp shooter, that is, a political sniper, and it is one bill, one kill. Once passed, let’s chill. 

Expectedly, all standing on the politically dominant side voted for it (72 of them) and all 9 WP MPs voted against it. 

The opposition’s main gripe is that of the chilling effect. That is, it threatens to silence legitimate expression of opinion, especially those that are not in favour of or complementary with the political status quo and pragmatic mindset.

And our local history has a few of those unnerving episodes like Operation Coldstore in the 1960s and the Marxist Conspiracy in 1980s. 

They are serious reminder of how the wielding of power, constitutionally granted under the veneer of legitimacy, can lead to outcome that are openly lawful but with dire private consequences for those who had suffered innocently under its cold, unyielding hands. 

Coupled with the solemn reality that ordinary citizens and opposition politicans can and have been sued by ministers and government bodies for defamation and contempt, which of course, comes under a separate legal jurisdiction altogether with different justification, you thus can’t blame Singaporeans for feeling a little chill down their spine with the passing of a bill that may be perceived as granting too much powers to the ministers to decide what is true and what is not (1st bar) and what is in the public interest and what is not (2nd bar). 

In my view, the two bars (and nothing more in terms of further caveats and elucidation) works less to narrow ministerial powers, but more to deepen even further the chilling effect. 

More disconcerning for most is that truth is often fungible, amendable to cultural and political interests; most of which are hidden from the public eye. 

In a way, truth in this post-truth world has many patrons, some of which are saints of virtues and some are villains of vices, in particular, of a self-preservation nature. 

The other aspect is, what really is public interest? Is it amendable to exact definition? 

NCMP Dennis Tan said that the definition is “too general and its scope not clearly spelt out.”

“One clause states it is in the public interest for a minister to act against a piece of falsehood to prevent a diminution of public confidence in performance of any duty or function of the Government.”

Dennis said that “the diminution of confidence in the Government is “not found in fake news legislation elsewhere in the world.””

What is meant then by the diminution of confidence in the Government? Maybe this is where the chill spills over. 

Anyway, Dennis added: “It is for the Government, by its own effort, to earn and maintain public confidence in itself, and any use of law to deter the diminution of public confidence will run counter to that.”

Personally, I am of the view that it all comes down to trust. 

Trust is the social glue and capital that hold cohesive, dynamic and resilient a nation together. 

Once you lose it with the people, or once it is undermined with too much paternalistic control, or with what is perceived as the government telling the people to leave it to us cause we know what’s best for you, you run the risk of a citizenry backlash from the build-up pressure arising from the accumulated chilling effect. 

(And trust me, the people’s trust are shakened two years ago when the sibling rivalry forces one to unilaterally open parliament just to clear his name and when there was some puzzling definition on who is truly our first Elected President). 

However, Shanmugam is quick to clear the air on his side here by saying: “The proposed law is not a political tool for the ruling party to wield power, but is about shaping the kind of society that Singapore should be.”

Here, I wonder, what kind of society does the ruling party thinks Singaporeans should be? And what kind of laws ought to be passed that walk us with open mindedness and courage to think out of the box the sure and steady path towards a society that the ruling party desires that we should be? 

I noted George Yeo once recalled this: 

“A speech I made about the need to prune the banyan tree in order that civic participation could flourish resonated with many Singaporeans. Pruning the banyan tree means cutting down hierarchy. Letting more sunlight through enables the social network to be better energised.”

I suspect this is the real concern for Singaporeans, even I believe, the silent majority. 

And alas, some may call those debating against pofma as entrenched alarmists who is opposing for opposing sake. Actually, there is nothing wrong with that because it is really a matter of degree and I can’t imagine a functioning democracy - vibrant and alive - allowing a bill of such widespread effect like pofma to be passed with curious unanimity, unopposed and “un-debated”. 

The raw reality is this, the opposition must do their job, or else, vote for what?

So, with the passing of pofma, the one-shot-one-kill is done - aimed, triggered and fired. 

In our local political culture, we should know by now that however much our government wants to lead by fair representation and public consultation, the result will always be what they have decided because we trust their beneficent and noble intentions. 

The real test however will be how pofma will be used or applied by the enlightened ministers. 

And on this point, Shanmugam had noted that the NMPs ”agree with the principle of the Bill, though they might diverge from the Government in how the laws should be carried out.”

Let’s hope that our government will wield the law to not always shape the kind of society that they think Singapore should be, but what Singaporeans earnestly want it to be. 

And one can always hope that they will prune it right, with truly benevolent intentions, so that the end result is that they will allow “more sunlight through (to enable) the social network to be better energised“. Cheerz.