The Inquiry Pte Ltd v Attorney-General

The Inquiry Pte Ltd (TIPL) runs the online magazine Jom. On 7 July 2023 it published an article, Singapore This Week, which included a politics section on the Ridout Road bungalow leases of two Ministers and a society section asking whether Instagram had acceded to a censorship request concerning a post by Charles Yeo. On 16 July 2023 two Correction Directions were issued to TIPL under s 11 of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (POFMA). The first identified two false subject statements in the politics section: that Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean did not respond to questions on conflicts of interest and the Code of Conduct for Ministers beyond saying the spirit of the Code mattered more than its letter, and that the Singapore Land Authority spent more than $1 million renovating 26 and 31 Ridout Road because the Ministers were to be tenants. The second identified the statement that the Government caused Instagram to geo-block a post by Charles Yeo.

TIPL complied, and around 17 July 2023 added addenda to the articles stating it did not intend to and did not make the subject statements. Its applications to the Ministers to cancel the directions were rejected on 21 July 2023, and it appealed to the High Court in Originating Applications Nos 764 and 765 of 2023 under s 17 of the POFMA, relying only on the ground in s 17(5)(a). It was not disputed that the subject statements as framed were false statements of fact communicated in Singapore.

1. Whether, at the time the Correction Directions were issued, the articles made or contained the three subject statements
2. Whether, under s 17(5)(a) of the POFMA and in light of [155] of TOC, the court may take into account amendments made after a direction is issued but before the Minister decides an application to cancel it
3. Whether the addenda meant the articles no longer made or contained the subject statements

Applying the second step of the framework in The Online Citizen Pte Ltd v Attorney-General and another appeal and other matters [2021] 2 SLR 1358 (TOC), the judge held that the Minister need not identify a specific segment or class of readers; the court decides objectively whether a statement is a reasonable interpretation of the material read as a whole. Read in context, the politics section's description of Mr Teo's reply as pithy, followed by the line about checking oneself, conveyed that he had no other answer. The article also, read as a whole, asserted that conflicts of interest caused the land authority to spend over $1m of taxpayer money despite a low rental return; the judge found the allusion to rent of 10 cents per square foot misleading, as gross floor area is the appropriate market measure. The society section, through a series of speculative associations, led readers to conclude that the Government had Instagram geo-block the post.

On timing, the judge held that the High Court's task under s 17(5) is confined to the three statutory grounds and concerns the decision to issue the direction, not the Minister's later refusal to cancel it. The tense used in s 10, which allows directions even where a statement has been amended or has ceased to be communicated, and the scheme of s 19 showed that the relevant time is when the material was first communicated. That fit the statutory purpose of counteracting falsehoods already communicated. The remarks at [155] of TOC were provisional and dealt with a marginal case where a meaning lies at the outer range of reasonable readings; such a disavowal would be considered by the Minister under s 19.

The addenda were therefore irrelevant. In any event they were bare denials, not clear and unequivocal disavowals, and did nothing to neutralise the slant of the articles. A direction, unlike a blanket disavowal, allows the full facts to be put before readers.

Valerie Thean J dismissed both appeals, leaving the two Correction Directions in place. Parties unable to agree on costs were to write in within 10 days.