Following the Minister of Manpower Josephine Teo’s rejection of the Singapore Democratic Party’s application to cancel the correction orders she issued to the party under the Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), SDP is taking the matter to Court.

Adhering to its promise to do so, the SDP had filed an originating summons against the Minister in the High Court.

In a statement on their website yesterday (8 Jan), the party noted that hearing is set to commence on 16 January at 10am. They also said that they will not be engaging a lawyer but instead will argue the matter themselves.

The statement added that the SDP has set out its case in a detailed submission to the ministry, including statistical analyses of the ministry’s own data, explaining why Ms Teo was wrong to issue the orders in the first place.

The party also indicated that the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) had, in their corrections, cited different sets of data and had accused the SDP of making statements that they did not actually make in order to support its case.

The statement went on, “Ms Teo arrogantly dismissed our application saying that it ‘does not provide sufficient grounds for the cancellation of the CDs’ and refused, or was unable, to back-up her allegations in her rejection of our submissions.”

As such, SDP says it is “left with no choice” but to pursue the matter in High Court.

The party also emphasised that another reason it is taking legal action is because “Ms Teo’s order is an abuse of the law”.

The party explained that if the correction directions issued by Ms Teo are upheld, then “the last holdout where important national issues are openly and robustly debated on the Internet in Singapore would be irreparably closed”.

“The employment of Ministerial decree to accuse the opposition of stating falsehoods when the statements are in fact true cannot be condoned,” cautioned the party.

It noted that the application of facts and logical reason to persuade the public in a political debate should not be sacrificed for the “whims and opinions” of ministers.

“By her action, Ms Teo has plunged a dagger into the heart Singapore’s political system already plagued by anti-democratic rules that keep the PAP entrenched in power,” said SDP.

“The PAP must not be allowed to be the accuser, prosecutor and judge on any political matter, let alone one like the foreign-worker issue which has been the source of much frustration and anger among Singaporeans.”

SDP went on to say that if the ruling party gets away with using POFMA “in such a slipshod and partisan manner”, every critic will then be at its mercy.

The party explained that while it would rather focus on its election campaign, it has decided after lengthy deliberation to undertake this legal action.

The party says, “…as difficult as it may be, we must stand up for our fellow Singaporeans and fight for what little space we have left in Singapore to uphold our democratic freedoms.”

While the party is certain that the court of public opinion is on its side, they must also attempt to succeed in the court of law.

“This is not just the fight of the SDP but of every opposition party, every organisation and, indeed, every Singaporean who values our Pledge “to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality.”

What’s happened so far?

On 14 December, the MOM issued three correction directions to the SDP for three postings it made online regarding employment trends in Singapore. The ministry alleged that the statements made by the party were false.

MOM directed that the party carry a correction notice on each of the two Facebook post and one article on its website contains false statement of facts and a misleading graphic.

While SDP complied with the request and added the correction notice to all three posts, the party later refuted the ministry’s claims. The party penned a detailed statement on its website about the issues it has with the directives, pointing out that their posts were, in fact, true and correct based on data published by MOM itself.

The party then submitted an application to Ms Teo to cancel the correction directions – as provided for in POFMA – but the application was rejected on the grounds that the party did not provide sufficient grounds for the cancellation. There was no explanation given on how the SDP’s application was lacking.

In response (6 Jan), the SDP said on its website that MOM’s rejection and reasons given “is not a rational answer”, with the party contending that it has submitted a “detailed account – including analysing MOM’s own statistics – of the reasons for the statements in our posts.”

In that response, the party also included the full document which they had submitted to MOM, showing their reason for the application to cancel the correction directions.

The party also hit back at Ms Teo for not being able to give an explanation for rejecting SDP’s application despite having the time to do so.

“Minister Josephine Teo, despite having the entire Ministry and its officials at her disposal with two full working days and an entire weekend to refute our specific arguments, has refused or been unable to do so. This is telling,” it wrote.

It added, “Replying that the ‘Minister has therefore decided to refuse your Application’ is not an answer, it is a cop-out.”

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Singapore and Vietnam might be on the shortlist for the second Trump-Kim summit this year

According to the South Korean Foreign affairs Ministers, Singapore and Vietnam are…

多日披麻戴孝讨债,讨债公司老板被捕

近日,一名讨债公司负责人多次以披麻戴孝的方式上前讨债,警方以公共滋扰法令逮捕该名追债公司老板白丰伟。不过据了解目前他已保释在外,警方仍在调查有关案件。 根据本社日前的报道,讨债公司屡出新招,以披麻戴孝的方式连日进行讨债,使被讨债的建筑公司老板深受其扰。他以方言大声哭孝,不停喊道“还钱,还钱”向老板讨债,同时以哼唱丧歌来威胁老板出面处理。最终,不堪其扰的建筑公司报警处理。 事发经过 讨债公司老板白丰伟于上周一(27日)亲身到该公司讨债,但却被建筑公司老板拒绝门外,甚至报警赶人。 翌日,他又出现在该公司门口,披麻戴孝跪地10-15分钟,威胁老板出面商谈,但老板仍拒绝出面,但他并未放弃。 5月29日当天,再次“完整着装”出现在该公司门口,公司职员一再澄清并无欠债,已交由律师处理。 5月31日下午,白丰伟仍不听劝阻,带着口罩、哨子、担幡,并将各大媒体的报道制成布条写着“血汗钱还给我们”,在公司面前叫嚣。后来,因数度澄清不果,公司决定报警处理。 建筑公司:忧生意遭受波及,不排除提控 根据建筑公司老板黄先生描述,“整个过程差不多持续了10分钟左右,我抵达后,对方已不见踪影,警方事后也到场了解情况。” 黄先生表示自新闻出街以来,已收到不少顾客的来电,担心公司名誉受损。他坦言,如今收到陌生电话时仍心有余悸,不敢接听,待搞清楚对方身份才能接听。 “我这几天都忙著接电话,都是顾客询问。虽然目前生意未受波及,但仍担心顾客会因此失去信心。” 他再次澄清并无欠债,两年前合作的承包商在工程完毕后并未提供12个月的保修服务,并陆续发出17万2960元的的额外费用,而经核对后发现有关项目并不在合约范围内,故无支付费用的义务。…

Singapore Changi Airport reached all-time high of 58.7 million passengers in 2016

Singapore Changi Airport has announced that in 2016, it has reached 58.7…