Search

The Singapore Court of Appeal has for the first time in The Online Citizen v The Attorney-General (8 October 2021) adjudicated on the constitutionality of correction directions issued by Ministers against allegedly false statements of fact under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019. An overarching framework was utilised to assess whether the Ministerial directions restrict free speech under Article 14(1)(a) of the Constitution; if so, whether the restrictions are justifiable under the Constitution and whether there is a rational nexus between the statutory aims and enumerated exceptions. This case comment also examines the constitutional stance towards subject statements, the doctrine of compelled speech as applied in the US and UK, stop communication directions, the contexts in which statements are interpreted and their potential harms as well as the proportionality analysis for assessing the constitutionality of legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on the restrictions in the freedom of speech in Singapore. It mentions the common law offence, issues related to reasonable doubt and the need of protecting public confidence. The administration of justice, the relationship between the public and the courts, and the risk test for determining contempt of Singapore courts are discussed. The scope of fair criticism in case of scandalizing contempt is also discussed.