The Online Citizen Pte Ltd v Attorney-General: POFMA, Statutory Interpretation & Online Falsehoods
The Online Citizen Pte Ltd ("TOC") filed Originating Summons No 118 of 2020 in the High Court of Singapore to set aside a Part 3 Correction Direction issued under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 ("POFMA"). The Correction Direction was issued because TOC published an article reporting that Lawyers For Liberty had made a press statement containing false information about execution methods in Changi Prison. The court dismissed TOC's application, holding that TOC failed to prove that the subject statement was not a statement of fact or that it was a true statement of fact, as required by s 17(5)(b) of POFMA.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court upholds POFMA Part 3 Correction Direction against The Online Citizen for publishing false statements. Focuses on statutory interpretation.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Hui Choon Kuen of Attorney-General’s Chambers Teo Meng Hui Jocelyn of Attorney-General’s Chambers Pang Ru Xue Jamie of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| The Online Citizen Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Hui Choon Kuen | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Teo Meng Hui Jocelyn | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Pang Ru Xue Jamie | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Eugene Thuraisingam | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
4. Facts
- Lawyers For Liberty published a press statement alleging brutal execution methods in Changi Prison.
- The Online Citizen Pte Ltd published an article repeating most of the allegations made by Lawyers For Liberty.
- The Online Citizen Pte Ltd sent an email to the Ministry of Home Affairs soliciting comments on the claims.
- The Competent Authority issued a Part 3 Correction Direction to The Online Citizen Pte Ltd.
- The Minister rejected The Online Citizen Pte Ltd’s cancellation application.
- The Online Citizen Pte Ltd takes no position regarding the truth of the subject statement.
5. Formal Citations
- The Online Citizen Pte Ltd v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 118 of 2020, [2020] SGHC 36
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lawyers For Liberty published a press statement. | |
| The Online Citizen Pte Ltd published an article repeating allegations made by Lawyers For Liberty. | |
| The Online Citizen Pte Ltd sent an email to the Ministry of Home Affairs soliciting comments. | |
| The Competent Authority issued a Part 3 Correction Direction to The Online Citizen Pte Ltd. | |
| The Minister rejected The Online Citizen Pte Ltd’s cancellation application. | |
| Hearing date | |
| Parties submitted written submissions to the Registry. | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether the subject statement is a statement of fact under s 17(5)(b) of the POFMA
- Outcome: The court held that the subject statement was a statement of fact.
- Category: Substantive
- Whether the subject statement is a true statement of fact under s 17(5)(b) of the POFMA
- Outcome: The court held that the subject statement was not a true statement of fact.
- Category: Substantive
- Onus of proof in an appeal to set aside a Part 3 CD
- Outcome: The court held that the legal burden of proof rests on the statement-maker in an application made under s 17(5) of the POFMA to set aside a Part 3 CD.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of the Part 3 Correction Direction
9. Cause of Actions
- Application to set aside a Part 3 Correction Direction under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019
10. Practice Areas
- Media Law
- Constitutional Litigation
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Media
- Technology
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singapore Democratic Party v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 25 | Singapore | Disagreed with the High Court's reasoning in SDP on the legal burden of proof in an appeal to set aside a Part 3 CD. |
| Loo Chay Sit v Estate of Loo Chay Loo, deceased | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 286 | Singapore | Cited to determine the legal burden of proof with reference to the language of the legal elements and exceptions set out in s 46 of the Land Titles Act. |
| SCT Technologies Pte Ltd v Western Copper Co Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 1471 | Singapore | Cited for the common law principle that “he who asserts must prove”. |
| Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 373 | Singapore | Cited to support the argument that the right to free speech does not extend to a right to deceive or maintain a deception. |
| Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others | House of Lords | Yes | [2001] 2 AC 127 | England and Wales | Cited to support the argument that there is no public interest in preserving a right to disseminate falsehoods. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature (Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation) Rules 2019 (S 665/2019) |
| r 5 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation) Rules 2019 (S 665/2019) |
| r 5(3) of the POFMA Rules |
| r 7(1) of the POFMA Rules |
| r 15(2) of the POFMA Rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (Act 18 of 2019) | Singapore |
| s 11 of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (Act 18 of 2019) | Singapore |
| s 17(5)(b) of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (Act 18 of 2019) | Singapore |
| s 11(4) of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 | Singapore |
| s 17(5) of the POFMA | Singapore |
| s 2(2)(a) of the POFMA | Singapore |
| s 2(2)(b) of the POFMA | Singapore |
| s 10(1) of the POFMA | Singapore |
| s 17(2) of the POFMA | Singapore |
| s 17(1) of the POFMA | Singapore |
| s 5(a) of the POFMA | Singapore |
| s 18 of the POFMA | Singapore |
| Art 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 103 of the EA | Singapore |
| Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 15(3) of the Protection from Harassment Act (Cap 256A, 2015 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Coroners Act (Cap 63A) | Singapore |
| s 25(1)(b) of the Coroners Act (Cap 63A) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) | Singapore |
| s 313(m) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019
- Part 3 Correction Direction
- False statement of fact
- Statement of fact
- Subject statement
- Onus of proof
- Reporting defence
15.2 Keywords
- POFMA
- online falsehoods
- correction direction
- freedom of speech
- statutory interpretation
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 | 95 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 90 |
| Constitutional Law | 30 |
| Administrative Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Statutory Interpretation
- Freedom of Speech
- Online Falsehoods
- Administrative Law