MINDEF–TOC POHA Dispute

Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng (POHA Saga)

The legal dispute between the Government and The Online Citizen (TOC) over the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) was a significant case regarding the rights of the state to use anti-harassment laws against publishers[cite: 1].

Background and Initial Ruling

In January 2015, TOC published an interview with Dr. Ting Choon Meng, co-founder of MobileStats, who alleged that the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) had "premeditated" a patent infringement and waged a "war of attrition" to wear him down financially during court proceedings[cite: 1]. The Attorney-General (AG) applied for a Section 15 order under POHA to compel TOC to include a notification that the statements had been declared false[cite: 1]. A District Court initially granted the order, ruling that the Government had the legal right to apply under POHA[cite: 1]. This was subsequently overturned by the High Court, prompting an appeal by the AG[cite: 1].

Court of Appeal Decision (2017)

On 16 January 2017, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's ruling in a rare 2-1 split decision[cite: 1].

• Majority Opinion: Judges of Appeal Andrew Phang and Chao Hick Tin ruled that the Government is not a "person" under Section 15 of POHA[cite: 1]. They noted that the legislative intent, as evidenced by parliamentary debates, was focused "solely on human beings" who could suffer emotional or psychological impact[cite: 1]. The court also highlighted that MINDEF, possessed of "significant resources and access to media channels," was not a "helpless victim" and the allegations had no discernible impact on its reputation[cite: 1].
• Dissenting Opinion: Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon argued that Section 15 was a standalone remedy for "clear falsehoods" and should apply to "non-natural persons" like the Government[cite: 1]. He stated that there is no human right to disseminate misinformation and that false speech contributes nothing to the "marketplace of ideas"[cite: 1].

Concluding Statements

The ruling prompted immediate responses from various stakeholders:

• Ministry of Law: A spokesperson stated that the Government’s intent was for Section 15 to be available to the Government and corporations to respond to "fake news"[cite: 1]. The Ministry described the Workers’ Party’s opposition as "misconceived" and stated the Government would study the judgment to consider further steps to correct deliberate falsehoods[cite: 1].
• The Workers’ Party: The party welcomed the decision, asserting that the Government does not need POHA for protection as it already possesses significant media access[cite: 1]. They emphasized that POHA was intended to protect individuals and that using it for the state risks weakening Singapore’s climate of free speech[cite: 1].
• Dr. Ting Choon Meng: Expressed happiness that the court confirmed the Government should not use anti-harassment laws against "the man in the street"[cite: 1].
• TOC Editor Terry Xu: Described the judgment as being "based on common sense" and called the Government's decision to use POHA "inappropriate and unjustified"[cite: 1].