A Facebook page with a seemingly authoritative name “Fact Check Singapore” (FCS) continues to explain why its operators should remain "anonymous" (i.e. cowardly and faceless).

This was after the page received some online heat over its half-right (i.e. quite wrong) information on historian Thum Ping Tjin during the recent long weekend.

The administrator has since come out to reiterate the reasons why he and his volunteers have to be "cowardly faceless entities" looming online.

Quoted by mainstream media

The reason?

Joseph, the founder of FCS, told Channel NewsAsia that some Singaporeans are "extremely vindictive when you say anything that is remotely supportive of the government".

A similar reason was shared on the FCS Facebook:

"I think it is timely for us to put on record why we have chosen not to reveal ourselves. Singaporeans, especially those who are anti-establishment, have proven time and again to be vindictive of those that they see as pro-government - which we are not. Sadly, when we Fact Checked PJ Thum’s credential, we had to delete and ban numerous people from our page as their comments towards us were frightening filled with anger and vitriol."

Maybe one has to fact-check the type of "frightening" evidence or vindictiveness of Singaporean opposition supporters that caused the administrators of FCS to be so worried.

After all, politicians from the ruling party are supportive of the government and 145,000 public and civil servants work for the government.

Fact-checking Fact Check Singapore: What are its aims?

Launched in December 2016, FactCheck.SG "aims to be a nonpartisan consumer advocate for Singaporean voters" and "reduce the level of deception and confusion in Singapore politics".

More importantly, it is claiming to model itself after FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.

But is FCS really adopting the best practices of FactCheck.org?

We will explain why Fact Check's association with FactCheck.org and the use of such an authoritative-sounding name is problematic.

And we will use the standards of FaceCheck.org to show why FCS, with its seemingly righteous aims, is causing more confusion online.

Fact Check Singapore: Its process (if any)

At FactCheck.org, the staff declare and follow a process when they select, research, write, edit and, if necessary, correct their articles.

In fact, they declare the topics that they choose, focusing on the factual accuracy of what is said by the president and top political leaders. They also seek balance in the selection by devoting an equal amount of time to review claims by the two major political parties.

On the other hand, FCS does not declare its selection or research processes.

Joseph told Today that a "typical fact-checking post takes him around an hour or two to complete".

In other words, he must be a really good researcher to conduct such a quick investigation and publish them with confidence.

Furthermore, Joseph does not share whether he relies on primary sources of information for his research.

Moreover, the selection of falsehoods FCS chooses to debunk is skewed.

Over the past 15 months since the page's inception, it has only debunked falsehoods related to the government and politicians of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP).

In other words, it has debunked zero falsehoods concerning any opposition party leaders, falling way short of its aim to "monitor the factual accuracy of what is being said by Singapore’s key political players".

That is unless it doesn't think of the Workers' Party (WP) parliamentarians as "key political players". :)

Fact Check Singapore: Its sources of funding and the identity of its staff

FactCheck.org declared that it was supported entirely by three sources of funding. It also listed its staff and past contributors.

Contrast this to the lack of transparency by FCS.

Despite the calls from concerned media observers to be more transparent, Joseph has stayed firm, telling CNA that he really don't see an issue with his anonymity.

This has resulted in some confusion in terms of how many people are behind the operation.

In his Today interview on March 24, it appears that Joseph is running the site on his own.

Today noted that "it is a lonely journey" for him as "no one else knows about his secret mission" except his immediate family and very close friends.

However, Joseph revealed in his CNA interview on April 4 that he was running FCS with the help of two other volunteers.

Such confusion can be mitigated if its readers know clearly who are behind FCS.

[related_story]

Is it really non-partisan?

In conclusion, the key issue lies in how FCS attempts to brand itself.

If FCS brands itself as a national site (using the word "Singapore") that is non-partisan, it has to behave in a way that befits its name.

For instance, the National Heritage Board (NHB) oversees matters relating to the usage of the National Symbols of Singapore (our flag, national anthem, state crest, national pledge, lion head symbol, national flower), so that our national symbols will not be misused.

The "Singapore" in Fact Check Singapore is clearly misused.

And it is obviously partisan.

Thanks to CNA's fact checking, "Joseph" has admitted that he used to run a political blog and was allegedly an ex-Workers' Party (WP) supporter.

Screenshot of the Profile: "Introduction - Former supporter of the WP. AHPETC opened my eyes to the truth. I now help others to see the WP for what they truly are."

But that's not all.

His profile reveals that he is not just an ex-WP supporter, but an anti-WP person, for he wanted "others to see the WP for what they truly are".

So, how is Joseph going to persuade readers that the site is not biased towards any particular political group?

FCS' track record of the past 150 FB photo posts clearly indicated that the admin wasn't going to fact check any falsehoods on WP or the opposition parties.

Maybe Joseph should do well to rename his site as a "A Selective Fact-Checking Singaporean" instead.

Or "Anonymous Cowards of Singapore"?

By doing so, he will help to reduce the level of confusion in Singapore politics online, which was what he sought to achieve in the first place.

Allegedly sought.