Fact checking in Asia – Part 5b Asia Pacific.

"We will continue to be your single source of truth," and "Unless you hear it from us, it is not the truth." Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister of New Zealand.

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” Harry S. Truman

Asia Pacific censorship – Australasia.

The last post on Asia Pacific included the five countries in the southwest of Asia – Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam. These countries are heavily surveilled and censored by their own governments, but with very little activity from Western fact checkers in 2025. The remains of Asia Pacific regions is broadly called the continent of Australasia, which includes Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, and Singapore, plus the small island nations in the Pacific. An analysis of fact checking in Indonesia, also in Australasia, has already been published on 1 May 2025.

Australia.

The largest of these countries is Australia, although its population is only around twenty-eight million. It is the sixth largest country in the world. The original inhabitants, known as the Aborigines, settled in Australia 50-65 million years ago, and are one of the world’s oldest living cultures. Australia was colonised by the Dutch and the British in the 17^th and 18^th Century, and the European colonisers largely overrode ancient cultures and imposed a European style system of rule. Australia now has close ties with Britain and the USA, being one of the ‘five eyes’, an intelligence alliance between Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the USA. Since 2021, it also is part of a trilateral security partnership with the UK and the USA, known as AUKUS.

Australia’s Constitution does not protect press freedom, although generally journalists have been able to cover controversial topics in the same manner as in other liberal democracies. RSF states that there has been criticism of hyper-concentration of media ownership in Australia. Two giant firms dominate the mass media, Nine Entertainment and News Corp Australia. The national broadcaster the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), is the largest public broadcaster, operating TV channels, radio stations and online publications. Additionally, the owners of these media companies have close ties to political leaders, which fuels doubts about editorial independence. A Senate committee in 2021 confirmed the existence of a growing culture of secrecy within the administration, this included informal pressure to prevent the revelation of certain matters, and intimidation of whistleblowers [1] here.

The Australian Government has occasionally acted against media outlets, claiming national security interests. For example, in June 2019, police raided the Sydney offices of ABC and the home of Sunday Telegraph political editor Annika Smethurst, seeking evidence against officials who leaked sensitive government information to journalists. These events were widely condemned [2] here.

Like other countries, Australia has passed censorship legislation in recent years. According to RSF:

“…federal laws tightening national security — particularly those enacted after the 11 September terror attacks in the US — have hampered press freedom and the free flow of public-interest information. This notably includes laws on foreign interference, the disclosure of public-interest information by government officials, incitement to racial and religious hatred, and data surveillance” [3] here.

As well as laws hampering press freedom, as in other countries legislation has been passed in Australia to control information on the internet. This includes the 2022 Online Safety Act, that requires online platforms to comply with the Online Content Scheme, censoring information in line with the rules set out in the legislation, with financial penalties for not doing so. As has occurred in Europe and the UK, this online censorship legislation in Australia has been criticised by the present US administration, with an ongoing court case to defend freedom of speech. This action is being taken by Elon Musk and a gender critical activist [4] here.

The Australian Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) has been highly critical of the government’s attempts to further control information through ‘misinformation’ legislation. An IPA report in 2023 points out that proposed legislation has a broad and subjective meaning of misinformation; the Australia Media and Communications Authority (ACMA) would be granted extraordinary powers in interpretation, application and enforcement; that misinformation definitions would only apply to critics of the government; and draconian penalties would cause tech companies to over-comply to prevent possible penalties arising under the proposed legislation. Additionally, Australians would have no right of appeal or review of ACMA decisions; truth would not be a defence [5] here. Criticism by media companies, legal experts, and the political opposition means that this type of legislation is unlikely to be passed in Australia in the near future.

During the Covid-19 era in Australia, it was claimed that censorship severely affected healthcare. Lead by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, the Australian government pushed legislation that critics say muzzled free speech. Expert opinions about treatments, vaccine risks, mandates, and lockdowns were shut down. This was investigated by a team of five doctors invited by the Australian Medical Professional Society (AMPS) who toured Australia in 2023. One of the team, American Pulmonary and Critical Care Specialist Dr. Marik stated: "I was horrified by the number of Australian physicians whose licenses had been removed just for saying anything against the narrative, with no due process." The British Professor and Oncologist Dr. Angus Dalgleish was also critical: "The most startling thing for me was the professionals who were fired or de-registered for the smallest offenses, like just looking after their patients." Kara Thomas, Secretary of AMPS stating: "One in five healthcare professionals have left Australia since the beginning of COVID.” [6] |here. This persecution of medical professionals acts as a deterrent to other professionals who may consider speaking out, and for those that are concerned at the future ability to work ethically, it provides an incentive to leave. Hence, this form of censorship is not in the public interest.

The government is assisted in its censorship activities by a small group of Australian fact checking platforms. The French AFP has a Meta contract for third party fact checking on Facebook. The Australian newswire Australian Associated Press (AAP) also is verified signatory of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), it fact checks on behalf of Meta in the Pacific Islands and New Zealand. Its own fact checked copy is circulated to its client base, the media in Australia and overseas.

However the most interesting issue with Australian fact check platforms is a scandal unearthed by the Sky News Australia in 2024 and 2025, which has resulted in the closure of two fact check platforms, RMIT ABC and RMIT Fact Lab. [7] here. Both platforms were signatories of the IFCN. Early in 2024 a referendum was being held on the Australian constitution, in which the government and opposition took an opposing viewpoint. The RMIT fact checking platforms were found to be censoring conservative social media posts, whereas they were not censoring other posts; they were interfering with politics. There have also been accusations in other countries of conservatives being censored more than others. For example, a book authored by Matt Palumbo in the USA called Fact-Checking the Fact Checkers compared the content moderation of American posts, and he found that conservative posts were more likely to be censored or moderated than other posts.

However, in this case both ABC television and the RMIT University were funded by the Australian government, and the government appeared to be influencing fact checkers to moderate posts in favour of their own political position. Taxpayers paid more than Australian $670,000 to the university through the ABC [8] here, and this also involved Meta, who also funded RMIT as a third party fact checker. Sky News published a lengthy investigation in 2023 which found the university was being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars from Meta through an Irish subsidiary to police speech on social media [9] here. RMIT Fact Lab was suspended by Meta after an investigation by Sky News, called The Fact Check Files. This demonstrated that RMIT was not keeping to the rules of impartiality required by verified signatories of the IFCN [10] here.

RMIT was also operating a platform linked to the American platform First Draft, a significant part of the censorship industry, named by American investigator of the Twitter Files, Matt Taibbi. Taibbi put FD/IFL as the most important actor in the Industrial Censorship Complex [11] here. First Draft and its head Claire Wardle have now moved to Brown University where they operate the Information Futures Lab (FD/IFL). The Twitter files demonstrated that the US administration under Biden pressurised and funded fact check platforms to censor to suit their own political aims. Hence the precedent of taking government money to shape political fact checking procedures is not new, and the RMIT close contact, FD/IFL, had previously undertaken similar activities in America [12] here. RMIT renamed its First Draft platform Cross Check in 2023, after the FD/IFL were discredited by the Twitter Files [13] here. RMIT ABC was closed down after ABC ended its relationship with RMIT and also ended its fact checking activities [14] here. Meanwhile, RMIT Fact Lab had a change of brand image and relaunched this platform as RMIT Lookout in November 2024. [15] here. Meta also resumed its third-party fact checking contract with RMIT.

This scandal also casts a shadow over the IFCN. IFCN had verified RMIT fact check platforms in November 2023. This was due to be renewed in November 2024, and RMIT Lookout’s verification status was renewed without any reference to the scandal unearthed by Sky. Indeed, its previous name was removed from past records, and the new name of RMIT Lookout was inserted [16] here. This verifies if anything that as long as platforms are prepared to keep to ‘the narrative’ what they choose to do is irrelevant to IFCN approval. After the reaccreditation by the IFCN, the director of RMIT fact checking department, Russell Skelton, said he was looking forward to continuing the “fight against misinformation”, and also commented on RMIT’s close relationship with the IFCN [17] here.

However, after unrelenting pressure from Sky, RMIT finally closed down its fact checking operations in February 2025. It stated that this was linked to Meta changing its funding practices. However, RMIT continues its media literacy programme, which as this Substack has revealed, is a sinister global brainwashing project to persuade people not to question official narratives [18] here and here.

New Zealand

Like Australia, New Zealand is a country built on European colonisation. However, the relationship between Europeans and the native Māori is generally peaceful and respectful compared to other colonised countries. New Zealand does not have a written constitution, and RSF states that there is a relatively free media. However, internet censorship in New Zealand is active and is operated by the Department of Inland Affairs (DIA) with a system of blocking URL sites. It was reported on Wikipedia that the banned URLs are on a NetClean White Box server, which in 2009 contained over 7000 websites [19] here. The DIA states these are all linked to child images, but published lists from other sources including other investigative reporting sites and video sharing platforms, such as Bitchute and Zerohedge, that sometimes criticise government policies and produce evidence to back their claims [20] here.

As in the rest of the world, the Covid era produced many measures to control information in New Zealand. Whilst heads of state declare this was to safeguard populations; this was clearly not in the interests of public health. For example, qualified and experienced experts were denied access to mainstream media worldwide, including in New Zealand. Examples include a Canadian virologist Byram Bridle, German scientist Sucharit Bakhdi, American critical care doctor Pierre Kory, British cardiologist Aseem Malhotra, French microbiologist Didier Raoult, American epidemiologist Martin Kulldorf, and New Zealander statistician Barry Young, and many others. These experts in their field had something to contribute to the debate on emerging pathogens and their treatment, whether they were right or wrong, and should have been listened to on the international stage. They should also have had a voice within government departments that make decisions and implement policy. To dismiss these experts’ opinions is reckless.

However, they were dismissed and also smeared. The then Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern claimed to be the only source of truth at this time [21] here. One of the casualties of this policy was the New Zealander Barry Young, who released anonymised data that reveals that the Covid-19 vaccines are associated with raised mortality. Again, whether Young was right or wrong, his voice should have been heard, and health authorities should have publicly checked his statistics to determine whether there were negative outcomes, in the public interest. Instead they chose to arrest Young [22] here. Despite the RSF claim that the media is free in New Zealand, Young’s own story did not appear in mainstream broadcasting there.

Fact check activity in New Zealand is limited. The French newswire AFP and the Australian newswire AAP both are third-party fact checkers with Facebook. One online media outlet was found with a fact check page, Stuff.co.nz. However, their fact check output called The Whole Truth follows approved narratives. There is no indication of their funding. The conclusion in New Zealand is that the government exercises fact checking operations, through the DIA, whilst social media fact checking is undertaken by foreign agencies.

However, media literacy programmes appear to be developing in New Zealand, and the University of Canterbury and Massey University have media literacy programmes that have been ongoing since 2007 [23] here and here. The danger of this form of indoctrination has not had sufficient exposure and more awareness needs to be raised.

Malaysia.

Malaysia is a federal constitutional monarchy, and the country is in two parts. The more western peninsular is joined to Thailand, and the eastern part of Malaysia is on the island of Borneo, sharing borders with Indonesia and Brunei. It was historically part of the Malay Kingdom, but like other countries in the region it was occupied by the British during the British Empire era, and during the second world war occupied by the Japanese. Malaysia achieved independence in 1957. It is a multiethnic and multicultural country, the population consists of Malay, Chinese and Indian people.

RSF states that although the constitution of Malaya guarantees press freedom, there is draconian legislation that allows the authorities to send journalists to prison: up to 20 years for those accused of violating the 1948 Sedition Act and 14 years for the 1972 Official Secrets Act. The Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) is often used to curb what is considered to be "fake news". The Printing Presses and Publication Act (PPPA) gives the government strict control over the licensing of print media outlets. The government plans to amend the PPPA to extend its reach to online media, and to add heftier fines and jail time. On a more positive note, judicial reforms that include a Freedom of Information Act and are under way, and no journalists are currently imprisoned [24] here.

The enforcement of censorship in Malaysia is primarily regulated by several government bodies, including the Ministry of Communications and Multimedia (MCMM) that implements policy, and the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) that regulates online material. These organisations ensure that media and communication adhere to established guidelines and societal values. Amnesty International claimed in 2020 that censorship in Malaysia was on the rise, and it launched a campaign called Unsilenced. They created an online gallery of content that had been banned or censored in Malaysia, with the aim of raising awareness of the negative effects of censorship [25] here.

Most of the Malaysian population of 34 million use the internet, with 26 million using social media. Western social media platforms are not prohibited in Malaysia, with WhatsApp, TikTok, Facebook and Instagram being most popular sites. In spite of this, very little Western fact checking located; AFP is contracted to Facebook, and has two fact check platforms in Malaysia, AFP Fact Check Malaysia, and AFP Semakan Fakta. AFP is approved by the IFCN, but no local fact check platforms were found on the verified signatories site.

As elsewhere, media literacy is on the rise on Malaysia, with evidence that universities are moving towards this form of mind control [26] here and here and here.

Philippines.

The Philippines is an island nation, situated to the east of Borneo, and south of China. It consists of over 7,000 islands. It is the world’s twelfth most populous country. It has undergone Spanish, American and Japanese invasions and colonisations, and became an independent country in 1946. RSF calls the media freedom situation in the Philippines as challenging. Journalists face serious threats, including “red-tagging”. This is used by the military and government to label journalists investigating sensitive issues as subversives and terrorists. Journalist Frenchie Mae Cumpio, the only detained reporter, has been imprisoned for five years on bogus charges of "financing terrorism" and "illegal possession of firearms." She is currently on trial and faces up to 40 years in prison [27] here.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right enshrined in the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. It states that no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press. This constitutional protection reflects the Philippines’ commitment to fostering an open and transparent society where citizens can freely express their thoughts and opinions. The historical context of speech rights in the Philippines reveals a complex interplay of power, resistance, and social change, significantly shaping public discourse throughout the centuries [28] here.

Historically, there have been challenges to freedom of speech, notably during the colonial era and the martial law period from 1972 to 1986. During martial law, communication was heavily monitored, with widespread censorship. This culminated in a revolution that restored democracy and emphasised the importance of freedom of speech as a pillar of democratic governance. However, there have been more recent examples of harassment of journalists and media outlets that are critical of government. Despite assurances in the Constitution, Philippine law does not protect journalistic freedom in practice. Defamation is still criminalised; several journalists and website editors have faced what RSF calls trumped up charges that have resulted in their detention [29] here. Alternate online news sites have also been blocked by the Philippine military [30] here.

Internet laws include The Cybercrime Prevention Act OF 2012 (CPA). This covers offenses against issues such as privacy and confidentiality, computer-related offenses, and content-related offenses. Its original goal was to prevent issues such as cybersex, child pornography, identity theft and unsolicited electronic communications. However, this has since been expanded. The CPA can now sentence internet users for up to 12 years in prison for posting defamatory commentaries on social media [31] here.

Censorship in the Philippines is augmented by a very vibrant and active fact checking network, with the French newswire AFP having a local platform plus twelve other national platforms, five of which are verified signatories of the IFCN. Of these platforms, AFP plus seven others are associated with media organisations or online news platforms, three are linked to universities and four are linked to the American NGO Internews. Amongst other activities, Internews funds media organisations to move online, which has many advantages to both the media organisation and users, but moving online also makes it easier to control content. Often, Internews assisted platforms are then encouraged to use advertisers on their platforms, but they can only obtain advertising revenue by being a ‘trusted brand’, i.e., keeping published stories to approved narratives.

Some of these platforms are collaborative projects. For example, Facts First PH (FFPH) is a group of over 120 media, coalitions, civil society groups, business organisations, and research and legal groups. It was founded by the CEO of the online news platform Rappler, the American global technology non-profit Meedan, and GoogleNI. In 2025 FFPH now names GoogleNI as its funder. Its aims are to encourage news organisations, academics, and partner groups to publish reports debunking what FFPH calls lies or misleading information. The news organisations are also encouraged to advise their readers to report to their tiplines – these then enable fact checkers to be made aware of posts on platforms such as Viber, Messenger and X (Twitter), which can then be actioned. Tiplines are designed to give encourage individuals to report stories, individuals, and organisations that do not follow the approved narratives [32] here.

Universities’ income stream for fact checking also accesses Western monies. For example, Tsek is a platform of the University of Philippines College of Mass Communication Journalism Department. This is usually only active during elections. Its 2025 funders include Meedan and the Canadian government. It collaborates with 24 local organisations, most of which are Filipino fact checking platforms and media organisations [33] here.

One of the fact check platforms that collaborates with Tsek is the VERAfiles. This is a non-profit operated by veteran journalists, founded in 2008, and a verified signatory of the IFCN. In 2025 its funders include Meedan, Open Society, National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which many consider is a CIA cutout, and Meta. It has had past funding from Internews. It has produced a booklet on fighting fake news, and it has an education section on its website that offers media literacy and fact checking information [34] here. Although most of its recent fact checks are local issues, on searching for past fact checks on ‘Covid Vaccines’ the fact checks defend the vaccines by using subjective sources such as Anthony Fauci and the CDC. Ir would allow greater accuracy if actual statistics were examined, such as those from the UK’s Office of National Statistics (ONS), or data from adverse events records such as the American VAERS, or Pfizer’s released trial documents.

One of the most important Filipino fact check sites is Rappler, also IFCN verified. It is also a member of Meta’s third-party fact-checking programme. Rappler was launched in 2011 by ex-CNN journalist Maria Ressa; it started as a Facebook page in 2011 and moved to a website in 2012 [35] here. Ressa and Rappler were critics of the rule of President Duterte who was in office between 2016 and 2022. Duterte was a strongly against the illegal drug trade, and it is claimed he oversaw thousands of extra-judicial killings in his fight against drugs. During his period in office, he also improved the Philippines relations with Russia and China. Following an uprising by ISIS fighters in the Philippines, Duterte imposed a period of martial law, which interfered with press freedom [36] here. Duterte term ended in 2022, and was succeeded by Bongbong Marcos, son of a former dictator of the Philippines who was overthrown in a revolution. His father Ferdinand Marcos was given political asylum in the USA, whilst after leaving office Duterte was investigated by the ICC for his drug war activities [37] here. Currently he is imprisoned in The Hague; there is speculation that this is politically motivated [38] here. Meanwhile, Rappler’s founder Ressa was awarded a Nobel Prize in 2021 for her efforts to safeguard freedom of expression [39] here. There are some who claim the Nobel Peace Prize awards are often politically motivated [40] here.

In 2018, the Philippine government began legal proceedings against Rappler, and in 2018 its media license was revoked, for allegedly violating the constitution by being foreign-owned. Whatever the nationality of its owner, the funding of Rappler is indeed largely from Western sources, including Meta, NED, Fredrich Naumann Foundation, Internews, Meedan, and Google. However, in defence of free speech, the criticism of one’s own government is a citizen’s right, providing that Rappler is open concerning its foreign funding. Ressa was also arrested and imprisoned for tax evasion, from which she was acquitted in 2023 [41] here.

Whatever one’s perspective on fact-checking, it is not an objective process. In the case of the Philippines, digging into censorship funding and censorship activities gives a clear view of the political processes that lie behind fact checking and political outcomes.

Singapore.

Singapore is city state and an island nation, located at the southern tip of the Malay archipelago. In its past history it was part of the British Empire, it was occupied by the Japanese, and after the WW2 it was part of Malaya, but became an independent nation in 1965.

It is a wealthy nation, a tax haven, with a high GDP. RSF states that “Although Singapore regularly presents itself as an advanced global city attractive to foreign capital, there is little respect for press freedom and editorial independence.” [42] here.

Control over its citizens’ lives is absolute. For example, sweeping legal changes regarding vaccine mandates in Singapore were passed after a high-profile two-day visit from oligarch Bill Gates and General Secretary of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Tedros Ghebreyesus [43] here. There is no possibility that this could be debated on the media, nor online in Singapore.

RSF states that since its Independence, Singapore has been ruled by the People’s Action Party (PAP), that tightly controls the media. Independent media outlets reporting on political and social issues barely exists. A few independent news websites, such as The Online Citizen, have tried to offer an alternative perspective, but its broadcasting licence was revoked and it now operates out of Taiwan [44] here. The online position is also controlled:

“Internet freedom in Singapore declined…as the remaining provisions of the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA) of 2021 came into effect in December 2023, giving authorities broad latitude to restrict online activity. The government continued to exercise control over the digital environment, ordering online outlets to publish correction notices on articles or risk being blocked... At times, internet users were intimidated and investigated by police, and some faced investigations and penalties for sharing political and social content on digital platforms.” [45] here.

Other restrictive legislation includes the Online Criminal Harms Act (OCHA) and the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA). However, social media platforms are allowed to operate in Singapore and has wide usage. This includes Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, LinkedIn, and YouTube.

These are monitored by AFP and Reuters, that both fact check on behalf of Meta. There is also a local news outlet, the Straits Times, that has a fact check system, called askST. It is owned by Singapore Press Holdings. Readers send questions to the section on their website called Fight Fake News that are then answered [46] here. Obviously, askST can choose questions and it can avoid questions that are focused on political issues.

A website was set up in 2021 during the Covid era, called Black Dot Research Fact Check, owned by Black Dot Communications [47] here. At that time, its functions included Covid Watch and Vaccine Watch. It is still operating in 2025. On the top of its website is a fact check that investigates whether Bill Gates influenced the vaccine mandate policy in Singapore. However, the main focus of the fact check is to smear the online and media outlets that linked these two events, such as the Canadian Lifestyle News and American Vigilant Fox. Black Dot has also set up a network called the Asian Fact-Checkers Network (AFCN). Its aim is to find partners in the Asia Pacific region, to access resources including training resources, and explore funding pathways. Together with the think tank the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Black Dot hosted an AFCN fact checking conference in 2024 [48] here. Black Dot is a market and social research agency, with four staff named on its website. The ownership and funding of Black Dot is unclear, but it lists a number of companies on its website as partners; most appear to be Singapore based.

Pacific Islands.

It is unknown what islands are included in this area, as there are several island nations in the pacific region. However, these are fact checked on behalf of Facebook by the French AFP and Australian AAP.

Conclusion.

Within the Australasia region, there are a variety of cultures and government-styles. However, there are similarities in the way that media and internet freedoms are being more closely controlled in all these countries. Malaysia, New Zealand and Singapore seem to follow the same pattern of media and internet control by governments as the five countries in southeast Asia that were evaluated in my last report. The Covid-19 era seems to be a factor in the increase of surveillance of populations and of the medical professions in the countries in this region, in a manner that did not protect citizens. Even countries that aspire to be liberal democracies are pushing for more draconian censorship legislation; Australians were only just saved from one of the most rigid and controlled systems of information management in the world by strong opposition to intended legislation. Even where human rights are enshrined in a constitution, this has not stopped governments from harassing and imprisoning journalists and editors of internet sites. These rigid control systems are being augmented by the fact check industry; this is particularly obvious in the Philippines. Paradoxically, the more rigid the system of information control, the better this is for the business model of the censorship industry, whether censorship is enacted through governments, through the media, or through fact check platforms.

Interestingly, in Australia fact checking has been ‘outed’ for being partisan in struggles between political entities, and this eventually resulted in the closure of two IFCN verified fact check platforms. It also exposed the unwillingness of the IFCN to act against one of their own when clearly rules had been broken. If a verifying platform such as the IFCN does not expel a member who has not kept to its standards, then how can the IFCN have any credibility? In the Philippines, scrutiny of the background to the fact check platform Rappler demonstrates how international struggles between the superpowers of the USA on one hand, and China and Russia on the other, have been enacted through national politics and the fact checking system. Investigating this story reveals that this has involved global institutions such as the International Criminal Court and the Nobel Peace Prize committee, who perhaps compromised by their actions and interactions.

But insidiously, the systems of mind control, the media literacy training, is appearing in this region, as it is elsewhere in the world. This immense but covert operation is becoming the most sinister system of taking over the minds of our populations, especially the young. This is an issue that needs much wider recognition if we are to remain free.