Singapore Democratic Party v Attorney-General: POFMA, Statutory Interpretation, Online Falsehoods
The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) appealed against three Correction Directions (CDs) issued by the Minister of Manpower under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) concerning an article and Facebook posts about local PMET retrenchment. The High Court, presided over by Ang Cheng Hock J, dismissed the appeal, finding that the SDP's statements contained false statements of fact. The court held that the respondent had met its burden of proof in relation to the SDP Article.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Originating Summons Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against Correction Directions (CDs) under POFMA dismissed. The court found the SDP's online statements contained falsehoods regarding local PMET retrenchment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Judgment for Respondent | Won | Fu Qijing of Attorney-General’s Chambers Amanda Sum of Attorney-General’s Chambers Hri Kumar Nair of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Singapore Democratic Party | Appellant | Association | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Chee Soon Juan of Independent Practitioner |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Ang Cheng Hock | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Fu Qijing | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Amanda Sum | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Hri Kumar Nair | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Chee Soon Juan | Independent Practitioner |
4. Facts
- The SDP published an article on its website titled “SDP Population Policy: Hire S’Poreans First, Retrench S’Poreans Last” on 8 June 2019.
- The SDP published a post on its Facebook page on 30 November 2019 with a hyperlink to the SDP Article.
- The SDP published a post on Facebook on 2 December 2019 with a hyperlink to the SDP Article and a graphical illustration.
- The Minister for Manpower issued three Correction Directions (CDs) to the SDP on 14 December 2019.
- The CDs stated that the SDP Article and Facebook posts contained a false statement of fact.
- The SDP applied to the Minister of Manpower for the cancellation of the CDs on 3 January 2020.
- The Ministry of Manpower rejected the SDP's application on 6 January 2020.
5. Formal Citations
- Singapore Democratic Party v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 15 of 2020, [2020] SGHC 25
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| SDP Article published | |
| November Facebook Post published | |
| December Facebook Post published | |
| Correction Directions issued | |
| Application to cancel CDs filed | |
| Application rejected | |
| Originating Summons filed | |
| Hearing began | |
| Hearing continued | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Interpretation of POFMA
- Outcome: The court interpreted the provisions of POFMA regarding the issuance of Correction Directions and the burden of proof in appeals.
- Category: Substantive
- Burden of Proof
- Outcome: The court held that the respondent bears the burden of proof on the issues raised.
- Category: Procedural
- Retrospective Application of POFMA
- Outcome: The court held that the application of POFMA to the SDP Article did not constitute retrospective application of the statute.
- Category: Substantive
- Meaning of 'False Statement of Fact'
- Outcome: The court determined the meaning of 'false statement of fact' in the context of the SDP Article and Facebook posts.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of Correction Directions
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Appeals
- Media Law
11. Industries
- Media
- Technology
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chen Cheng and another v Central Christian Church and other appeals | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 236 | Singapore | Cited for the principles for determining fact and opinion in defamation law. |
| Golden Season Pte Ltd and others v Kairos Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 751 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that determining whether a statement is one of opinion or fact will depend on the entirety of the circumstances. |
| Review Publishing Co Ltd and another v Lee Hsien Loong and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 52 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that whether a statement is an opinion or a statement of fact is a question of fact and it is for the Court to determine. |
| Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Wright Norman and others and another suit | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 410 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a statement is more likely to be considered a statement of fact if it is unequivocal and does not indicate that it is based on particular data sources. |
| Lassiter Ann Masters v To Keng Lam (alias Toh Jeanette) | High Court | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 392 | Singapore | Cited to explain what a rehearing means in the context of Registrars’ Appeals. |
| Low Tuck Kwong v Sukamto Sia | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 639 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the re-publication of a libel is a new libel, and re-publishers will be liable as if the objectionable statement originated from them. |
| Crookes v Newton | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | [2011] 3 SCR 269 | Canada | Cited for the principle that the mere existence of a hyperlink within a document would not ipso facto mean that the document which could be accessed through the hyperlink was incorporated with the main document. |
| Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 791 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that, in determining the natural and ordinary meaning of words, the sense or meaning intended by the author is irrelevant. |
| Ng Koo Kay Benedict v Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 860 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the reasonable reader is likely to engage in some loose thinking. |
| Jeyasegaram David (alias David Gerald Jeyasegaram) v Ban Song Long David | High Court | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR 712 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the reasonable reader will not be conducting minute linguistic analysis of every phrase used. |
| Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another | High Court | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 1004 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a layman would not understand words in the same way a professional might. |
| Charleston v News Group Newspapers | House of Lords | Yes | [1995] 2 AC 65 | United Kingdom | Cited for the historical origins of the Single Meaning Rule in English jury trials for defamation. |
| Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe SAS v Asda Stores Limited | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] EWCA Civ 609 | England and Wales | Cited for the criticism of the Single Meaning Rule as being anomalous, otiose and potentially unjust. |
| Jeynes v News Magazine Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] EWCA Civ 130 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the reasonable reader should be neither perverse, nor morbid, nor suspicious of mind, nor “avid for scandal”. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature (Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation) Rules 2019 (Cap 322, No. S 665) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (No. 18 of 2019) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act
- POFMA
- Correction Direction
- CD
- False Statement of Fact
- PMET
- Retrenchment
- Hyperlink
- Singapore Democratic Party
- Attorney-General
15.2 Keywords
- POFMA
- Singapore Democratic Party
- Attorney-General
- Correction Direction
- Falsehood
- Online
- PMET
- Retrenchment
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Statutory Interpretation | 90 |
| Online Falsehoods | 70 |
| Constitutional Law | 40 |
| Communications and Media | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Online Falsehoods
- Freedom of Speech
- Statutory Interpretation
- Media Regulation