Singapore Democratic Party v Attorney-General
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Tay Yong Kwang JCA |
Judgment Date | 25 July 2022 |
Neutral Citation | [2022] SGCA 56 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Originating Application No 3 of 2022 |
Published date | 29 July 2022 |
Year | 2022 |
Hearing Date | 07 June 2022 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam, Suang Wijaya and Joel Wong En Jie (Eugene Thuraisingam LLP) |
Defendant Counsel | Tan Ruyan Kristy SC, Pang Ru Xue Jamie and Beulah Li Sile (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Subject Matter | Civil Procedure,Appeals,Permission |
Citation | [2022] SGCA 56 |
This originating application arises out of the issuance of a Correction Direction (“CD”) to the Singapore Democratic Party (“the SDP”) under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (Act 18 of 2019) (“the POFMA”) in respect of a statement it had published on its Facebook page. The SDP applied unsuccessfully to the relevant Minister to cancel the CD. Thereafter, the SDP appealed to the High Court under s 17 of the POFMA to set aside the CD (“the OS”). The High Court judge (“the Judge”) dismissed the OS in
Having considered both parties’ written submissions, we do not think it is necessary to have an oral hearing in court. For the reasons set out in this judgment, we dismiss the SDP’s application for permission to appeal.
The factual background The relevant publications and the CD issued to the SDPWe begin by outlining the relevant publications which form the background to the CD issued to the SDP.
On 10 April 2018, the then-Chief Executive Officer of the Housing & Development Board (“the HDB”), Dr Cheong Koon Hean (“Dr Cheong”), delivered a lecture in the IPS-Nathan Lecture Series (“the IPS Lecture”). The relevant portion of the written script of that lecture stated as follows (“Dr Cheong’s Statement”):1
With a growing population, living density in Singapore will increase from 11,000 persons per square kilometre to 13,700 persons per square kilometre between now and 2030. However, we need not fear densification if it is done well.
On 20 April 2018, a Straits Times forum letter from one Mr Cheang Peng Wah was published (“Mr Cheang’s Forum Letter”). Mr Cheang’s Forum Letter referred to Dr Cheong’s remarks at the IPS Lecture and the relevant portion stated as follows:2
ALARMED BY POPULATION FIGURES Housing Board chief executive Cheong Koon Hean, in her IPS-Nathan lecture on April 10 entitled ‘Anticipating Our Urban Future – Trends, Threats And Transformation’, said that Singapore’s population density would increase from 11,000 people per sq km to 13,700 people per sq km between now and 2030.
This is alarming. As Singapore’s land area is a mere 720 sq km, does this mean that our population size could go up to 9,864,000, or nearly 10 million, by 2030?
…
On 24 April 2018, a letter by Mr Jaffrey Aw – the Director (Strategic Planning) of the HDB – was published in the Straits Times (“Mr Aw’s Letter”). Mr Aw’s Letter read as follows:3
Living density different from population density We refer to Mr Cheang Peng Wah’s letter (Alarmed by population figures; April 20).
Housing Board chief executive Cheong Koon Hean’s lecture was about how Singapore can anticipate its urban future and develop “liveable density”.
The figures cited were, hence, on living density, and not population density. Living density takes into account only the land available for urban areas, and excludes land used for ports, airports, defence and utilities, among others.
It would be inaccurate to extrapolate the population size from the living density figure. [emphasis added]
On 3 July 2020, as part of its campaign in the 2020 Singapore Parliamentary General Elections, the SDP published a press release on its Facebook page titled “10 million population” (“the SDP Article”). The key part of the SDP Article stated:4
Also, the HDB chief executive Cheong Koon Hean said that Singapore's population density would increase from 11,000 people per sq km to 13,700 people per sq km between now and 2030. Given our land area, this means that our population would go up to nearly 10 million by 2030 (http://www.straitstimes.com/forum/excerpts-from-readers-letters).
The hyperlink at the end of that paragraph referred the reader to Mr Cheang’s Forum Letter.
On 4 July 2020, the Alternate Authority for the Minister for National Development (“the Minister”) issued the CD to the SDP pursuant to s 11 of the POFMA. The CD identified the statement in the SDP Article quoted at [7] above (“the Subject Statement”) as a false statement of fact which the SDP was communicating in Singapore and directed the SDP to insert a correction notice in the specified form at the top of the SDP Article by 5 July 2020.5
Procedural historyOn 17 August 2020, the SDP applied to the Minister to cancel the CD. On 19 August 2020, the Minister refused the application. On 2 September 2020, the SDP filed the OS, seeking to set aside the CD on various grounds under s 17 of the POFMA. In particular, the SDP argued that the Subject Statement was a statement of opinion which was not covered by the POFMA and, in the alternative, that it was not a false statement of fact.6 Initially, the SDP also contended that the CD breached Art 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed) (see the Judgment at [7]).
At the first hearing of the OS on 11 September 2020, the Judge ordered the matter to be adjourned pending the outcome of two appeals before this court where substantially similar arguments regarding the constitutionality of the POFMA had been made. The Judge also dismissed the SDP’s preliminary oral application for the OS to be heard in open court. The Judge directed that it be heard in chambers.7
The judgment in respect of the said pending appeals,
On 28 March 2022, the Judge heard the OS on its merits.
The Judge’s decisionIn his Judgment issued on 10 May 2022, the Judge first set out his reasons for dismissing the SDP’s preliminary application for the OS to be heard in open court. The Judge noted that the default starting position for all originating summonses, as set out in O 28 r 2 of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) (“the ROC 2014”), was that they should be heard in chambers. The POFMA did not exclude the application of this provision or specify a different starting position for applications under s 17 of the POFMA. The question was therefore whether special reasons existed to warrant an open court hearing. The Judge found that no such reasons existed. Accordingly, the Judge dismissed this preliminary application (see the Judgment at [15], [26] and [27]).
The Judge then applied the
Accordingly, the Judge dismissed the OS and declined to set aside the CD (see the Judgment at [93]). On 24 May 2022, the SDP filed the present application for...
To continue reading
Request your trial