Govt’s statements about “falsehoods”, a threat to those with an opinion?
Many have described the recent court decision, which ruled that the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) could not be used by the government against The Online Citizen (TOC) and Dr Ting Choon Meng, as a “landmark” case. From a layman’s perspective, it seems entirely logical to me that the government should not be able...
Who needs protection from ‘false information’?
I refer to the Ministry of Law’s response to Workers’ Party’s statement on Protection from Harassment Act (POHA). The Government has never said that it needed protection from harassment. Nor does the Government intend to amend POHA to protect itself from harassment… The Government strongly believes that the scourge of...
Don’t make an ass of the law
The Court of Appeal (CA), in its recent judgement on the case between the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) and Dr Ting Choon Meng & The Online Citizen (TOC), laid down that the Government is not a legal person who can invoke the Protection from Harassment Act (PHA) for its benefit. The response by the Law Ministry (MinLaw)...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Papa PARDON Son Democracy SRFR on 𝐈𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲
- Longkang Undiscerning sotong on Singapore Needs a Dynamic Multi-Party System
- Light The Way on Is a Parliament full of PAP MPs really better for Singaporeans?
- Motherhood statements on Singapore Needs a Dynamic Multi-Party System
- StayTuned Sim Ann on Singapore Needs a Dynamic Multi-Party System
|
|