Tag Archives: POHA

While I appreciate the efforts by All Singapore Stuff editors to raise publicity of the Toa Payoh hawker center bully incident, I want to warn the Editors you may be sued by the bullies if they deem your incessant reporting of their antics and splashing their faces online as cyber bullying or harassment. Time to loosen your reporting and give them a chance to come out to apologise. Don't give them the chance to accuse you of harassment and use the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA). We still need alternative media in Singapore to give us the voice, just do not overdo it.

The Court of Appeal rules against the government and suddenly we see the machinery of the state and compliant media working hard to re-frame an incident - in which the apex court said would not have been a "just and equitable" use of POHA *even if* the law covered organisations - so as to justify its position.

Fearful of the proliferation of "false information" by citizen journalist sites, a law expert in Singapore has come out in support of extending the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) to include government agencies under its umbrella.

It states that “The Government, like any other person, should be entitled to point out falsehoods which are published and have the true facts brought to public attention under the law … In this connection, is it arguably, in the public interest and fair comment, to ask for some clarification as to what may constitute as “false information”? The issue of “false information” may not be as straightforward or simple as it may seem. Who gets to determine, perhaps arguably, arbitrarily what is false, or how false or how true the information (in part or in its entirety) may be?

We refer to the Ministry of Law’s reply on 22 January 2017 to our press statement on the Protection from Harassment Act. The Ministry of Law stated that it does not intend to amend the POHA to protect itself from harassment. We welcome this statement. However the Ministry has not stated if it will amend the POHA or introduce new laws to protect itself from false information.

The Workers’ Party says it will oppose amendments to the Protection from Harassment Act (“POHA”) because the Government does not need to be protected from harassment. The Workers’ Party’s statement is misconceived and misrepresents the issues and the Government’s aims.

The Workers’ Party welcomes the recent decision by the Court of Appeal in Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng that government agencies such as MINDEF do not fall under the legal definition of “persons” under Section 15 of the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA). However, we are concerned by the Ministry of Law’s response to the ruling, which suggests that the Government is looking into taking further action on the matter.

Ok guys and gals, so all of you cheering the rediscovery of common sense in the judgement on the Protection from Harassment Act, remember that the case would never have come about if TOC had not published Dr Ting's side of the case. Free speech still costs money, so put your money where your mouth is and support independent media in Singapore by contributing to the running costs of TOC.

The Straits Times Facebook post* only mentions the dissenting judgment that got OUT-VOTED. The outcome of the case was the exact opposite - the judges decided that the Government is NOT a person who can sue for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act. Can liddat one meh? Judging from comments, this has misled some people already. *Just to clarify - the actual judgment is in the article, but I think most people would reasonably assume the Facebook excerpt would reflect - not contradict - the final decision. Confusing messaging.

The courts have now given its final decision, after a two year battle involving the Attorney General’s Chambers, representing the Government, and lawyers working on behalf of Dr Ting Choon Meng and website, The Online Citizen (TOC). On Monday, the three-men panel of the Court of Appeal (CA), in a rare split decision, ruled that the Government is not a legal person, and thus has no recourse to invoke the Protection of Harassment Act (PHA) to defend itself from allegations made by Dr Ting.