Court hears SDP's appeal against Pofma
Party questions ministry's interpretation of labour statistics in closed hearing
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
Singapore Democratic Party secretary-general Chee Soon Juan (left) and vice-chairman John Tan leaving the Supreme Court yesterday. The party wants the court to cancel the correction directions it was ordered last month to post alongside its Facebook posts and an article on its website.
ST PHOTO: TIMOTHY DAVID
Follow topic:
The Singapore Democratic Party's (SDP) appeal against corrections issued under the fake news law began in the High Court yesterday, with it arguing that the legislation should be applied against clearly and verifiably false statements of fact, but not the interpretation of statistics.
The party wants the court to cancel the correction directions it was ordered last month to post alongside its Facebook posts and an article on its website. The order was made under the new Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma).
The arguments, in this first challenge to Pofma, were heard in chambers, which means the hearing was not open to the public or the media, after Justice Ang Cheng Hock turned down the SDP's application to move it to an open court.
Speaking to reporters outside the courtroom yesterday, party chairman Paul Tambyah said the crux of the SDP's argument is that the party had not made verifiably false statements.
For instance, if someone claims a roof in Punggol had collapsed, it would be easily verifiable as false, he said.
But, he added, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) had used the law to dispute the SDP's interpretation of statistics, which is "not an appropriate use of Pofma".
The case involves two Facebook posts and an article on the SDP website that made claims about Singaporean professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs).
The posts carried infographics depicting the employment of local PMETs as having fallen, and the unemployment of this group as having risen. They also linked to an article on the SDP website which claimed a rising proportion of Singaporean PMETs is being laid off.
In issuing the correction notices, the ministry said the posts and the article contained falsehoods. It had noted, among other things, that there has been no rising trend of local PMET retrenchment.
The MOM had cited data from its Labour Market Survey to show the number of retrenched local PMETs had fallen between 2015 and 2018.
But the SDP, also citing the survey, included data from 2010 onwards to argue that there is a longer-term upward trend.
Dr Tambyah said yesterday: "The MOM has decided that 2015 to 2018 is the magic period... This is an arbitrary use of a time period that doesn't make sense, because it's an interpretation of statistics."
SDP secretary-general Chee Soon Juan, who was in court with Dr Tambyah and party vice-chairman John Tan, said there are many possible interpretations of statistics and neither the ministry's nor the SDP's interpretations are false given the respective time frames used.
Said Dr Chee: "You can argue until the cows come home, and you will still have disputes about it. That is why we are saying Pofma cannot be applied, because Pofma is for deliberate online falsehoods, which this clearly is not."
In a media statement after the hearing yesterday, the MOM said the issue of the time period in the labour statistics in question, raised by the SDP, would be addressed when the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) presents the ministry's arguments to the judge.
It also reiterated that local PMET employment has risen steadily since 2015 and there is no rising trend of local PMET retrenchments since 2015.
The SDP will continue presenting its arguments today. When it has concluded, the AGC, representing the MOM, will begin its arguments. It is not known when the case will be wrapped up.
Deputy Attorney-General Hri Kumar Nair said yesterday that Parliament had promised a "swift procedure" for Pofma challenges in the High Court, but when it comes to the hearing, "it depends on the complexity of the case".
He added: "It is not provided in legislation when the judge will decide, but the process is swift."
