Protection from Harassment Act

POHA: DON'T LET THE GOVT FIND ANOTHER WAY TO CURB FREE SPEECH & PRESS FREEDOM

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.

Filed Under: 

WP: MINLAW'S REPLY DID NOT ADDRESS TWO KEY POINTS

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.

Filed Under: 

MINLAW: WP'S STATEMENT IS MISCONCEIVED & MISREPRESENTS ISSUES & GOVT'S AIMS

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.

Filed Under: 

WP CAUTIONS AGAINST AMENDING POHA TO PROTECT GOVT FROM HARASSMENT

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.

Filed Under: 

FREE SPEECH COSTS MONEY, HELP SUPPORT THE ONLINE CITIZEN (TOC)

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.

Filed Under: 

STRAITS TIMES MISREPRESENTS OUTCOME OF POHA APPEAL

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.

Filed Under: 

SEX VIDEO OF MARRIED S'PORE WOMAN GOES VIRAL, INTERNET BULLIES EXPOSE HER FAMILY & WORKPLACE

It started out as one of many sleazy internet threads found in the darker parts of the internet. A forum thread posted by an anonymous user on a popular sex forum showed a young Singaporean woman, her face fullye exposed, engaging in sexual acts with a Caucasian male in 9 separate videos. But it did not stop there.

Filed Under: 

ATTORNEY-GENERALS CHAMBERS USES POHA ON THE ONLINE CITIZEN - AGAIN

The Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) has threatened to file for harassment against this website – again. This is the second time in about seven months that the AGC is citing the Protection from Harassment Act (PHA) against The Online Citizen (TOC).

Filed Under: 

Pages

Advertisement
Subscribe to RSS - Protection from Harassment Act