Singapore Democratic Party v Attorney-General: POFMA Appeal & Correction Direction
The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the High Court's decision to dismiss their application to set aside a Correction Direction (CD) issued under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA). The CD was issued in response to a statement published by the SDP on its Facebook page regarding Singapore's population density. The Court of Appeal dismissed the SDP's application for permission to appeal, finding no grounds of general principle or importance that would warrant the grant of permission.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application for permission to appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Singapore Democratic Party's application for permission to appeal against a High Court decision upholding a Correction Direction under POFMA was dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Costs awarded | Won | Beulah Li Sile of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tan Ruyan Kristy SC of Attorney-General’s Chambers Pang Ru Xue Jamie of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Singapore Democratic Party | Applicant, Appellant | Association | Application for permission to appeal dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Beulah Li Sile | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Ruyan Kristy SC | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Pang Ru Xue Jamie | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Suang Wijaya | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
| Joel Wong En Jie | Eugene Thuraisingam LLP |
4. Facts
- The SDP published an article on its Facebook page regarding Singapore's population.
- The Minister issued a Correction Direction (CD) to the SDP under POFMA.
- The SDP applied to the Minister to cancel the CD, but the application was refused.
- The SDP appealed to the High Court to set aside the CD, but the appeal was dismissed.
- The SDP applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
- The SDP's article cited figures from a lecture by the HDB chief executive regarding living density.
- A Straits Times forum letter and a letter by Mr. Jaffrey Aw clarified the difference between living density and population density.
5. Formal Citations
- Singapore Democratic Party v Attorney-General, Originating Application No 3 of 2022, [2022] SGCA 56
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Dr. Cheong Koon Hean delivered a lecture in the IPS-Nathan Lecture Series. | |
| A Straits Times forum letter from Mr. Cheang Peng Wah was published. | |
| A letter by Mr. Jaffrey Aw was published in the Straits Times. | |
| The SDP published a press release on its Facebook page titled '10 million population'. | |
| The Alternate Authority for the Minister for National Development issued the CD to the SDP. | |
| The SDP applied to the Minister to cancel the CD. | |
| The Minister refused the application to cancel the CD. | |
| The SDP filed the OS, seeking to set aside the CD. | |
| The first hearing of the OS took place. | |
| Judgment in The Online Citizen Pte Ltd v Attorney-General was delivered. | |
| The Judge heard the OS on its merits. | |
| The Judge's decision was issued. | |
| The SDP filed the application for leave to appeal against the Judge’s decision. | |
| Court of Appeal heard the matter. | |
| Judgment without an oral hearing. |
7. Legal Issues
- Permission to Appeal
- Outcome: The court held that permission to appeal would only be granted if the SDP establishes one or more of the three well-established grounds set out in Lee Kuan Yew at [16].
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Grounds for granting permission to appeal
- Application of Lee Kuan Yew principles
- Whether POFMA decisions should be appealable as of right
- Interpretation of POFMA
- Outcome: The court found that the SDP's statement was a false statement of fact under POFMA.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Definition of statement of fact
- Application of TOC Framework
- Distinction between statement of fact and statement of opinion
- Open Court Hearing
- Outcome: The court held that the SDP did not demonstrate special reasons for the OS to be heard in open court.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Special reasons for open court hearing
- Application of O 28 r 2 of the Rules of Court
- Public interest in POFMA hearings
8. Remedies Sought
- Permission to appeal
- Setting aside of Correction Direction
9. Cause of Actions
- Appeal against Correction Direction under POFMA
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Constitutional Law
- Media Law
11. Industries
- Media
- Politics
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singapore Democratic Party v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 100 | Singapore | The High Court judge dismissed the SDP's application to set aside the Correction Direction (CD) issued under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA). |
| The Online Citizen Pte Ltd v Attorney-General and another appeal and other matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 1358 | Singapore | Upheld the constitutionality of the POFMA and ruled on the applicable burden and standard of proof in applications under s 17 of the POFMA. Set out a five-step analytical framework for determining whether a direction made under Part 3 of the POFMA may be set aside under ss 17(5)(a) and/or 17(5)(b) of the POFMA. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and another | Unknown | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 862 | Singapore | Established grounds for granting permission to appeal: a prima facie case of error, a question of general principle decided for the first time, or a question of importance upon which further argument and a decision of a higher tribunal would be to the public advantage. |
| VXF v VXE | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC(A) 24 | Singapore | The fact that a party’s substantive rights were affected by the judgment below was “not a reason per se to grant permission to appeal” |
| Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 354 | Singapore | The Fifth Schedule was only intended to curtail rights of appeal against interlocutory orders made at the hearing of interlocutory applications and that Parliament had intended that an appeal to the Court of Appeal ought to remain as of right where a final order disposing of the parties’ substantive rights was made. |
| Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd v Thangavelu | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 105 | Singapore | Rejected the appellant’s contention that an appeal had to lie as of right where the parties’ substantive rights were concerned. Instead, where the relevant restriction on the right to appeal was a “subject-matter restriction”, it was “irrelevant” that the decision in question affected a party’s substantive rights. |
| Lin Jianwei v Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and another | Unknown | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 683 | Singapore | Reaffirmed the grounds set out in Lee Kuan Yew at [16] for granting permission to appeal. |
| R (on the application of Maughan) v Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire | UK Supreme Court | Yes | [2020] UKSC 46 | United Kingdom | It would “be contrary to drafting conventions for a schedule to the Rules [in this case, the Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013 (SI 2013/1616) (UK)] to be used to make what would clearly be a change of some consequence in the law”. |
| Aries Telecoms (M) Bhd v ViewQwest Pte Ltd (Fiberail Sdn Bhd, third party) | Unknown | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 728 | Singapore | Does not stand for the proposition that where a substantive right is engaged and where permission to appeal would otherwise be necessary, it would follow that permission to appeal should be granted. |
| IW v IX | Unknown | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 135 | Singapore | Judgment calls made after considering particular factual situations would not raise any question of general principle or importance. |
| Chee Siok Chin v Attorney-General | Unknown | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR(R) 735 | Singapore | The applicant seeking an open court hearing must show “special reasons”. |
| UD Trading Group Holding Pte Ltd v TA Private Capital Security Agent Limited and another | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC(A) 3 | Singapore | Determining whether there are special reasons in a particular case for the matter to be heard in open court is therefore a fact-sensitive inquiry to which “no general answer can be given”. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court 2021 |
| Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) |
| Supreme Court of Judicature (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation) Rules 2019 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act
- POFMA
- Correction Direction
- CD
- Statement of fact
- Statement of opinion
- Living density
- Population density
- Permission to appeal
- TOC Framework
15.2 Keywords
- POFMA
- Singapore Democratic Party
- Attorney-General
- Correction Direction
- Falsehood
- Online Manipulation
- Appeal
- Permission to Appeal
- Population Density
- Living Density
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) | 90 |
| Civil Procedure | 70 |
| Appellate Practice | 60 |
| Administrative Law | 50 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Constitutional Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Media Law
- Online Falsehoods
- Freedom of Speech
- Civil Procedure