《防止网络散播虚假信息及操纵法令》
下赋予的权力

POWERS UNDER POFMA
by Teo Soh Lung

I have just finished reading the 154 page Court of Appeal judgement relating to the appeals of The Online Citizen (TOC) and the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). It is an exhausting and disappointing judgement. Read https://tinyurl.com/em29wksv

Throughout the judgement, speeches delivered by the Minister for Law were quoted to bring home parliament’s intention for enacting POFMA (Protection of Falsehoods and Manipulation Act). The court summed it up in paragraph 93:

“We are therefore satisfied, from our examination of the legislative material, that Parliament did consider the POFMA to be NECESSITATED BY CONCERNS, AT LEAST, OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND PUBLIC ORDER….” (emphasis in uppercase mine).

POFMA is therefore constitutional according to the Court of Appeal.

POFMA is not the first and last legislation that uses “national security and public order”, two extremely broad and senseless terms, as necessary reasons for the erosion of fundamental human rights (rights to life, open trial, equality, freedom of speech, assembly and expression) that are guaranteed by our constitution. We already have the Criminal Law (Temporary) Provisions Act (CLTPA), the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the new Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA). The last, FICA, gives even wider powers to our government.

These laws enable ministers or the president (acting under the advice of the ministers), instead of our courts to issue various orders curtailing or removing our constitutional rights. For example, under the CLTPA and the ISA, we may be arrested and imprisoned without an open trial. No evidence needs to be produced for such arrests and detentions. We are not tried before judges but are found guilty by ministers who are at liberty to imprison us indefinitely. Under FICA, the ministers can issue various ANTICIPATORY orders to stop or disable publications and communications. These are “nipped in the bud” acts, permitted by the law. We are helpless.

The powers of our courts are thus eroded by these laws. From its strong position as the arbiter of what is right and what is wrong and being the one and only authority to judge and mete out punishments in accordance with the law, its roles are restricted to that of ensuring ministers follow procedural matters and the little scopes provided by the laws.

I am sad for my country and its people, especially the young who will outlive the ministers who make these laws. It is they who have the most to lose. With so much economic uncertainties today, they have to soldier on under these oppressive laws. I wish them well.