SINGAPORE — The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) has come out swinging at the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) for what it described as “deliberate false statements” made by the party during and after a recent court hearing.

The opposition party had brought an appeal to the High Court to overturn correction orders imposed by Manpower Minister Josephine Teo under Singapore’s fake-news laws, the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma).

In a letter to the Supreme Court on Monday (Jan 20) — a copy of which was sent to the media — AGC pilloried SDP for “completely unacceptable” conduct, saying that the party was intent on misrepresenting the Government and undermining processes under Pofma.

AGC, which represented the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) during the court challenge, has sought a fresh hearing before Justice Ang Cheng Hock — who heard the appeal in chambers on Jan 16 and 17 — to deal with the matters brought up in its letter.

The letter, signed by Deputy Attorney-General Hri Kumar Nair, Deputy Senior State Counsel Fu Qijing and State Counsel Amanda Sum, was sent on behalf of Attorney-General Lucien Wong.

AGC took issue with two articles published on SDP’s website on Jan 16 — when the hearing was underway — and Jan 18.

THE JAN 16 ARTICLE

AGC had told Justice Ang on Jan 17, the second day of the hearing, that SDP had misreported AGC’s arguments in an article published on the party’s website the day before.

This was done in the presence of SDP secretary-general Chee Soon Juan and other party representatives.

AGC had called the article — titled “Dr Chee: It would be ludicrous for the MOM to say that ‘in the Minister’s view’ the earth is round” — highly misleading.

SDP’s article, AGC said, suggested that the Attorney-General was making the case that the “minister’s interpretation of the subject statement is determinative of the matter”.

In the article, SDP said AGC had argued that there may be "several possible interpretations" of a statement that "some people would have adopted".

SDP asked: “How many is some? 3, 10, 100? Falsehoods don't rely on opinions or interpretations of ‘some’ people. They are indisputably wrong and untrue.”

AGC rejected this, saying: “We made clear that that is not the Attorney-General’s case.”

While the minister’s interpretation of a statement was important since he or she must first form a bona fide view on a reasonable interpretation of the statement before deciding whether to invoke Pofma, it is the court — not the minister — that decides what the statement means, AGC said.

Pofma, which took effect in October last year, gives government ministers broad powers to stop the spread of online falsehoods and act against those who disseminate them.

To challenge a minister’s decision, individuals or organisations can appeal, first to the Government and then the courts. SDP’s case is the first court challenge after Mrs Teo rejected the party’s application to cancel the orders.

AGC said SDP’s Jan 16 article was calculated to embarrass the minister and falsely portray Pofma in a negative light.

It was also published before the Attorney-General had the opportunity to make his arguments. The Attorney-General’s team, led by Deputy Attorney-General Nair, laid out its arguments in court on Jan 17.

While AGC noted that Justice Ang had rightly observed that the parties were entitled to tell the public about the arguments they had made, the judge had impressed on Dr Chee and SDP’s representatives that the political party should ensure that any report or comment made about the proceedings should be accurate and correct.

AGC added: “His Honour (Justice Ang) reminded Dr Chee that the SDP may wish to get legal advice on what the SDP is allowed under the law to say publicly in relation to the court proceedings.”

Notwithstanding the reminder, AGC said SDP published further statements in a separate article on Jan 18, continuing a “false and dishonest narrative”.

THE JAN 18 ARTICLE

In its Jan 18 article, SDP cited a Straits Times (ST) report that quoted Mr Nair as saying that “the minister who initiates a Pofma direction will look at the article or statement in question, and determine what he believes to be its meaning”.

“A correction direction can then be issued based on the minister’s interpretation,” Mr Nair was quoted as saying by SDP, which called this a “shocking government stand”.

AGC noted, however, that SDP had blatantly cherry-picked Mr Nair’s comments and omitted critical parts of the ST report.

Among other things, AGC said SDP had left out Mr Nair’s rejection of the party’s claim that the meaning of the article or statement in question was up to the minister.

It also omitted Mr Nair’s comment that the appeal would be decided based on how the judge believed a reasonable member of the public would understand the statements, and the courts would have the final word.

AGC said SDP had “aggravated the falsity by deliberately mischaracterising the Attorney-General’s arguments”.

It added that while Dr Chee had given Justice Ang the assurances that SDP was a responsible party and had no desire to mislead the public, these “ring hollow and have been exposed”.

“The SDP simply ignored what His Honour said in chambers… and doubled down on its false misrepresentations to the public,” AGC said.

“Given His Honour’s reminder and the circumstances under which the exchange in chambers arose, the SDP cannot say that its error was innocent or even negligent.”

SDP ACTED IN ‘BLATANT DEFIANCE’ OF JUDGE

AGC said SDP had acted in blatant defiance of Justice Ang’s reminder and its conduct risked undermining public confidence in the administration of justice.

“The only inference is that the SDP is intent on misrepresenting the Government’s position and undermining the Pofma processes, and has lied, and will continue to lie, to do so,” AGC said.

It added that it was asking for another hearing before Justice Ang to deal with the matters set out in its letter “in view of the severity of the SDP’s misconduct and its recalcitrance”.

SDP'S RESPONSE

In its response to AGC's letter, SDP insisted that it had not misrepresented what Mr Nair said.

"It is the government’s position that 'the minister who initiates a Pofma direction will look at the article or statement in question and determine what he believes to be its meaning'. This is a direct quote from the ST report," SDP said, in a letter to the Supreme Court.

"But the SDP does not believe that this is the end of the matter under the Act, and the SDP did not at any time say that it was. Nor did we say in our article of Jan 18 that this was the AG's position. We knew that Pofma had a provision for us to take the matter to court.

"This means that we knew that the court would have the final say, that is, the judge will make the final determination on the government’s stand."

SDP also pointed out that its Jan 18 article began with the statement: “The Straits Times reported Deputy AG Hri Kumar who is representing Manpower Minister Josephine Teo in the Pofma issue…”

"It clearly states that the case was a dispute under Pofma, a provision made under the Act by the government," the party said.

"The fact that we’ve taken the matter to court makes clear our stand that the government does not have a final say in the matter."

SDP also pointed to the last paragraph of its Jan 18 article, which said that both parties would make written submissions by Jan 22, and that the judge would deliver his verdict thereafter.

"This makes it clear to readers that the matter will be decided by the courts, not the government," SDP said.

ABOUT THE CASE

On Dec 14, Mrs Teo imposed three correction directives on the SDP over an article and two Facebook posts that the Government described as false.

The orders pertain to a June 8, 2019 article published on SDP's website, titled “SDP population policy: Hire S’poreans first, retrench S’poreans last”. The Facebook posts contained links to the article.

MOM took issue with a sentence in the article that read: “The SDP’s proposal comes amidst a rising proportion of Singaporean PMETs getting retrenched.” One of the posts also contained an infographic depicting falling employment for professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) among residents here.

MOM had said that employment of Singapore PMETs has risen since 2015. It also said there was no rising trend of PMET retrenchments among residents.

SDP had said its article stating that there was a rising proportion of Singapore PMETs being retrenched was factual, because it referred to the share of Singapore PMETs being retrenched measured against all Singapore workers who had been laid off.

But MOM said what its numbers showed was that more among retrenched residents in 2018 had been PMETs, since more local workers were now employed in PMET jobs. “However, retrenchments have not been rising,” the ministry had said.

SDP has until Wednesday to file its written submissions. The party said last week that it would seek advice from its lawyers.