Issuance of POFMA Correction Direction for Online Commentaries on Compensation of Temasek Holdings CEO
Ministry of FinanceSpeakers
Summary
This question concerns the public interest grounds for issuing POFMA Correction Directions regarding online falsehoods about the compensation of Temasek Holdings' CEO. Mr Leon Perera inquired how these statements harmed public interest and whether withholding actual compensation figures while issuing corrections might erode public trust. Second Minister Ms Indranee Rajah, speaking for the Deputy Prime Minister, declined to provide specific grounds as the matter was subject to a pending judicial review application. Second Minister Ms Indranee Rajah stated that the High Court would serve as an independent tribunal to determine whether the public interest requirements under POFMA were satisfied. Second Minister Ms Indranee Rajah concluded that public trust is upheld by allowing the judiciary to independently evaluate whether the statutory tests for issuing such directions were met.
Transcript
6 Mr Leon Perera asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance with regard to the POFMA Correction Direction issued to several parties on the compensation paid to the CEO of Temasek Holdings on 19 April 2020, how does the subject statement harm the public interest as defined in section 4 of POFMA.
The Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, Mr Leon Perera asked for the public interest grounds of the decision of the Minister for Finance to issue four Correction Directions to a HardwareZone user, The Temasek Review's Facebook page, The Online Citizen's Facebook page and website, and Mr Lim Tean, for communicating the falsehood on his Facebook page on 19 April 2020, collectively "the Posts".
On 29 April 2020, The Online Citizen, or TOC, filed an application to the High Court seeking judicial review of the decision to issue the correction direction. One of the issues that TOC has raised before the Court relates to the public interest grounds under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act or POFMA. As this issue is now before the Court, given the specific circumstances of this case, it is not appropriate to answer this question.
Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I thank the Minister for her reply and I do understand that we cannot go into the answer to the question based on the legal reason that the Minister has given. I would like to just raise, I suppose the question about whether the POFMA directive actually is going to meet the requirement of addressing an issue of public trust.
If we take the approach that the POFMA directives are going to be issued every time a false figure is given for compensation of the top management of Sovereign Wealth Funds or the CEO of Temasek Holdings, and those POFMA directives are issued, but the real figure is not given, does that really meet the objective of reinforcing public trust in those institutions or does that actually potentially erode public trust because it will breed more speculation, to no constructive end. I think that will be my only supplementary question.
Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. He asked whether the POFMA directive is going to meet the requirement of public trust. So, the question really is this: the issue that has now been put in play by the application for judicial review is whether there is a question of public interest and that is before the Court. The Court is an independent tribunal that will make that decision. At the end of the day, insofar as this specific question of public trust is involved, the Court will decide on that.
With respect to the other matters, those do not really pertain to this particular question. The public trust will be upheld because the public will know when the Court decides on this issue, whether or not the test under POFMA was met.