It will refer matter to AGC; start-up stands by claim and will defend itself
By Feng Zengkun, The Straits Times, 21 Jan 2015
By Feng Zengkun, The Straits Times, 21 Jan 2015
THE Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) yesterday hit back at claims that it stole the idea for a mobile first-aid vehicle from a Singapore start-up and infringed the firm's patent. It added that it took the allegations very seriously and will refer the matter to the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC).
In a lengthy post on its Cyberpioneer Facebook page, MINDEF said it could not have infringed the patent for the vehicle since it was not valid in the first place. It pointed out that in January last year, a court had declared the patent invalid and revoked it.
This was after MobileStats Technologies abandoned its defence to MINDEF's counterclaim that the patent was invalid.
MINDEF said yesterday: "Just as there are many smartphone designs and manufacturers who do not infringe each other's patents, there are also many ways to design and produce military equipment." It added: "We are disappointed that the owner of MobileStats has disrespected the court's decision, and continues to make false and unsubstantiated accusations against MINDEF."
Last week, MobileStats co-founder Ting Choon Meng alleged in a report on The Online Citizen website that MINDEF had illegally copied his patented concept after speaking to him about it at a trade fair in 2005.
He and Dr Mak Koon Hou had started work on their mobile medical station after the Sept 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States. Their vehicle is essentially a truck that opens up to become a resuscitation area with surgical equipment, a built-in suction system for removing blood, fluids and debris, and emergency life-saving devices. They named it a "Station With Immediate First-Aid Treatment", or Swift.
MINDEF said yesterday: "Just as there are many smartphone designs and manufacturers who do not infringe each other's patents, there are also many ways to design and produce military equipment." It added: "We are disappointed that the owner of MobileStats has disrespected the court's decision, and continues to make false and unsubstantiated accusations against MINDEF."
Last week, MobileStats co-founder Ting Choon Meng alleged in a report on The Online Citizen website that MINDEF had illegally copied his patented concept after speaking to him about it at a trade fair in 2005.
He and Dr Mak Koon Hou had started work on their mobile medical station after the Sept 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States. Their vehicle is essentially a truck that opens up to become a resuscitation area with surgical equipment, a built-in suction system for removing blood, fluids and debris, and emergency life-saving devices. They named it a "Station With Immediate First-Aid Treatment", or Swift.
The duo obtained local and international patents in 2005.
Dr Ting said that while the Singapore Civil Defence Force had respected the patent when it called for a tender in 2006 to manufacture the Swift vehicle, MINDEF did not in its 2009 tender. He said he found out about MINDEF's vehicle only when it was exhibited at the 2011 National Day Parade.
Dr Ting and his partners decided to sue MINDEF instead of Syntech Engineers, which manufactured and supplied the vehicles. He said he was forced to drop the case last January, claiming that the legal costs were too high.
In its rebuttal yesterday, MINDEF said it was the court that had decided MobileStats should reimburse MINDEF $580,000 in legal fees. "The money will go to Syntech, the vendor, which honoured its legal obligation to MINDEF and bore the cost of the legal proceedings," it said.
If MobileStats believes it has a valid case, it should pursue the matter with the manufacturer, Syntech, not the end-user. MINDEF said: "Imagine if Apple sued Samsung handphone users - instead of Samsung Electronics - for allegedly infringing Apple's Intellectual Property rights."
Dr Ting posted a reply on MINDEF's Cyberpioneer Facebook page, saying this was a poor argument as even a person who buys a pirated DVD is also liable. He also told The Straits Times that if the AGC decides to act, "we will have to defend ourselves".
Dr Ting posted a reply on MINDEF's Cyberpioneer Facebook page, saying this was a poor argument as even a person who buys a pirated DVD is also liable. He also told The Straits Times that if the AGC decides to act, "we will have to defend ourselves".
Doc asked to stop making 'false statements about MINDEF'
By Samantha Boh, The Straits Times, 2 Feb 2015
By Samantha Boh, The Straits Times, 2 Feb 2015
THE Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) has sent a lawyer's letter to MobileStats Technologies co-founder Ting Choon Meng, asking him to sign a written undertaking "to cease and desist making false statements about MINDEF".
If Dr Ting refuses, he faces having the Protection from Harassment Act invoked against him, says the letter.
Dr Ting told The Straits Times yesterday that he received the letter last Friday and is seeking legal advice.
He added that he will respond to the letter in due course.
The legal row between the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) and Dr Ting started last month.
Dr Ting had alleged in a report on The Online Citizen website that MINDEF had copied his patented concept for an emergency mobile clinic after speaking to him about it at a trade fair in 2005.
He claimed that he and Dr Mak Koon Hou had started work on their mobile medical station after the Sept 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, and had obtained local and international patents in 2005.
MINDEF, however, replied a week later, saying it could not have infringed the patent for the vehicle since the patent was not valid in the first place. It said that a court had earlier declared the patent invalid and revoked it.
MINDEF was referring to MobileStats dropping its suit against the Government for patent infringement in January last year, citing a lack of funds.
At that point, the company had lost the Singapore patent for the concept because it had abandoned its defence against MINDEF's counterclaim that the patent is invalid.
MINDEF had said earlier that if MobileStats believes it has a valid case, it should pursue the matter with the manufacturer, Syntech Engineers, and not the end user.
MOBILE-CLINIC PATENT DISPUTE
Doc rejects demand to stop 'false statements'
Lawyers for doc, socio-political blog TOC say MINDEF doesn't qualify as harassment victim
By Jermyn Chow Defence Correspondent, The Straits Times, 11 Feb 2015
Doc rejects demand to stop 'false statements'
Lawyers for doc, socio-political blog TOC say MINDEF doesn't qualify as harassment victim
By Jermyn Chow Defence Correspondent, The Straits Times, 11 Feb 2015
A DOCTOR involved in a dispute with the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) has rejected legal demands to stop making "false statements" over the patent for a mobile medical station.
Socio-political blog The Online Citizen (TOC) has also refused to take down Dr Ting Choon Meng's allegations against MINDEF from its website.
Last month, the Attorney- General's Chambers (AGC) wrote to both TOC and Dr Ting, the co-founder of medical devices firm MobileStats Technologies, asking them to stop repeating claims that MINDEF had copied Dr Ting's patented concept for an emergency mobile clinic after speaking to him about it at a trade fair in 2005.
The AGC pointed out that Dr Ting's patent had already been declared invalid by a court last year and revoked.
If Dr Ting wanted to pursue his case, he should have sued the vehicle's manufacturer, Syntech Engineers, instead of MINDEF, the end user.
It also rejected Dr Ting's claim that MINDEF had delayed court proceedings to force him to drop his case by escalating legal costs.
The AGC said unless its requests to put an end to these allegations were met, it would apply for a court order under the Protection from Harassment Act.
But in their replies which were posted on TOC's site yesterday, lawyers for the doctor and TOC argued that MINDEF does not qualify as a victim of harassment.
Dr Ting's lawyer, Mr Choo Zheng Xi, said in his letter that the Act, which which came into force here last November, was intended to protect vulnerable individuals, such as children and women, from incidents of cyberbullying or stalking.
"The Act is clearly not intended to apply to the Ministry of Defence, which has ample resources to defend itself and publicly clarify its official position via public channels," he added.
Mr Choo also pointed out that MINDEF had clarified its position on its Cyberpioneer Facebook page and in The Straits Times.
He wrote that Dr Ting denies having made any "false statements" and "is unable to comply with your demands".
TOC's lawyer, Mr Eugene Thuraisingam, in a separate reply, said using the anti-harassment laws against his client would not be fair since it had published Dr Ting's statement "responsibly and without bad faith or malice".
He said TOC allowed MINDEF the right to reply by publishing an article with its rebuttals to Dr Ting's claims.
He also argued that the anti-harassment laws were meant to protect people, not companies, "much less a well-resourced government institution as MINDEF".
He denied that the statements Dr Ting made about MINDEF in the Jan 15 article, Inventor Forced By MINDEF To Close Company Over Patent Rights, were false.
When contacted, Dr Ting told The Straits Times last night: "The court case has concluded and both parties are entitled to speak their minds about what transpired. I hope no further court action will be necessary."
'False allegations can affect public confidence in MINDEF'
By Jermyn Chow Defence Correspondent, The Straits Times, 12 Feb 2015
By Jermyn Chow Defence Correspondent, The Straits Times, 12 Feb 2015
FALSE allegations can impinge on the Defence Ministry's integrity and dent public confidence in the organisation and the Government, said the ministry yesterday.
"As a government organisation, MINDEF is held to a standard of conduct that has to be no less than exemplary," said MINDEF.
It was responding to a doctor's refusal to drop his claim that the ministry had copied his patented concept for an emergency mobile clinic.
Socio-political blog The Online Citizen (TOC) also rejected demands by the Attorney-General's Chambers to take down Dr Ting Choon Meng's allegations from its website.
In a statement yesterday, MINDEF said it takes the allegations very seriously and has "provided opportunities for the false allegations to be corrected, but without success". It thus referred the matter to the AGC, it said.
The legal row between MINDEF and Dr Ting, the co-founder of medical devices firm MobileStats Technologies, started last month when the latter made the allegations in a TOC report.
The AGC wrote to Dr Ting and TOC, asking them to cease the allegations, or it would apply for a court order under the Protection from Harassment Act.
The legal row between MINDEF and Dr Ting, the co-founder of medical devices firm MobileStats Technologies, started last month when the latter made the allegations in a TOC report.
The AGC wrote to Dr Ting and TOC, asking them to cease the allegations, or it would apply for a court order under the Protection from Harassment Act.
But in replies posted on TOC's site on Tuesday, lawyers for the doctor and TOC argued that MINDEF does not qualify as a victim of harassment.
MINDEF reiterated that Dr Ting's patent was declared invalid last year and revoked. It said in the statement that it respects Intellectual Property laws and "honours patents that are valid".
MINDEF seeks court order against doctor-inventor, TOC
Ting, five people behind website notified of action being taken under anti-harassment laws
By Neo Chai Chin, TODAY, 13 Feb 2015
Ting, five people behind website notified of action being taken under anti-harassment laws
By Neo Chai Chin, TODAY, 13 Feb 2015
The Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) is pursuing a court order under anti-harassment laws against a doctor-inventor and the people behind sociopolitical website The Online Citizen (TOC), over what it contends are false statements made and published.
Dr Ting Choon Meng and five individuals behind TOC were issued letters on Wednesday by the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), which is acting for MINDEF. The letters informed them of action being taken under the Protection from Harassment Act, which took effect in November.
A pre-trial hearing has been fixed for March 5.
The move comes after Dr Ting rejected the AGC’s demand to stop making statements about MINDEF relating to the infringement of his patent for a mobile medical station and that the ministry had deliberately delayed court proceedings.
Dr Ting, co-founder of MobileStats Technologies, alleges that the Battalion Casualty Station that MINDEF had bought from Syntech Engineers was copied from his design.
MINDEF said Dr Ting’s patent had been declared invalid by the court, and that it had previously told him to pursue his infringement claim with Syntech Engineers, the commercial vendor of the station.
Commenting on the latest action by the AGC, Dr Ting said yesterday through his lawyer Choo Zheng Xi: “I will strongly resist MINDEF’s attempt to use the Protection from Harassment Act in this manner. MINDEF is fully entitled to, and has told, their side of the story on numerous platforms. Relying on the (Act) is overkill.”
Mr Choo is also one of the individuals behind TOC.
The website had also rejected MINDEF’s earlier demand to remove an article on Dr Ting or post a preface to the article that redirects to MINDEF’s clarification statement on the issue.
Its lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam said TOC had published Dr Ting’s statements responsibly and that it had given MINDEF the right to reply to the statements.
Mr Thuraisingam argued that the anti-harassment law was meant to protect persons, and not institutions such as MINDEF, from false statements of fact.
The ministry had said earlier that false allegations that impinge on its integrity could dent public confidence in MINDEF and the Government.
Under the Act, harassment is considered an offence, whether it is committed in the physical world or online. If convicted, a person can be fined up to S$5,000 and/or jailed up to 12 months. For repeat offenders, this increases to S$10,000 and/or jail of up to two years.
Under the Act, harassment is considered an offence, whether it is committed in the physical world or online. If convicted, a person can be fined up to S$5,000 and/or jailed up to 12 months. For repeat offenders, this increases to S$10,000 and/or jail of up to two years.
* Doc, blog staff 'made false claims'
Doctor who lost patent case, TOC failed to publish correction: Judge
By Elena Chong, Court Correspondent, The Straits Times, 16 May 2015
Doctor who lost patent case, TOC failed to publish correction: Judge
By Elena Chong, Court Correspondent, The Straits Times, 16 May 2015
HE HAD lost his patent case against the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF). But that did not stop Dr Ting Choon Meng from airing his grievances to sociopolitical blog The Online Citizen (TOC).
Yesterday, both he and five people running the website were found to have made false statements in a 27-minute video interview and an article that was published on the TOC website in January.
District Judge Bala Reddy ordered that as long as the video interview is published, it must include a prominent notification - at the start and at the end of the video, and lasting at least 30 seconds each - that certain statements made by Dr Ting have since been declared by the courts to be false.
A similar requirement applies to the article, which was the remedy sought by the Attorney- General's Chambers, representing MINDEF, under the new Protection from Harassment Act (POHA).
But the saga is not over. Dr Ting and TOC are appealing, with their lawyers arguing that the Act was never meant to cover such cases involving the Government.
Dr Ting's lawyer, Mr Choo Zheng Xi, said: "This is a judgment that stretches the reach of the harassment Act beyond what it was clearly intended to cover."
Dr Ting, the co-founder of medical devices firm MobileStats Technologies, claimed that MINDEF had copied his patented concept for an emergency mobile clinic after speaking to him about it at a trade fair in 2005.
The vehicle is essentially a truck that opens up to become a resuscitation area with surgical equipment and emergency life-saving devices.
Dr Ting's firm decided to sue MINDEF instead of Syntech Engineers, which manufactured and supplied the vehicles. He said he was forced to drop the case last January, claiming that the legal costs were too high.
A court then declared Dr Ting's patent invalid and revoked it.
He went to TOC to complain, among other things, about how MINDEF had not just copied his patent, but also tried to financially wear him down by dragging out the case in court.
Judge Reddy yesterday called Dr Ting "a disgruntled man who is unable to come to terms with the fact that his Singapore patent is invalid". He pointed out that although Dr Ting had known from the start that the vehicle was manufactured by Syntech Engineers, he had deliberately ignored the facts at every turn and referred to MINDEF as the party that infringed his patent.
Not only were his statements clearly "unsubstantiated and false", but he and TOC also failed to publish a correction. Dr Ting even went on to repeat his false statements in his affidavit to the court.
"Such aspersions on the integrity of MINDEF and our public institutions, if left unchecked, will severely undermine public confidence," said the judge.
He also highlighted how Dr Ting's statements on social media that MINDEF had connived to deliberately infringe his patent - despite the court ruling that there was never a valid patent in the first place - show that he had mounted a "collateral attack" on the court's final judgment.
The judge also ruled that the Government has the legal right to apply for an order under POHA.
The Act, which came into force last November, is meant to "protect persons against harassment and unlawful stalking".
The lawyers for Dr Ting and TOC argued that the word "person" does not include the Government. But the judge said that if the intention was for the word to mean only natural persons, it would lead to a situation where companies, for instance, will not be able to avail themselves of the remedies provided by the Act.
He also pointed out Section 3 of the Government Proceedings Act, which allows the Government to seek legal recourse as long as the claim, if it arose between private persons, provided a cause of action.
TOC's five respondents were Mr Lee Kwai Hou, who wrote the article "Inventor forced by MINDEF to close company over patent rights"; executive editor Xu Yuen Chen; editor Loh Hong Puey; managing editor Choo Zheng Xi; and finance executive Lee Song Kwang.
** TOC case: Govt cannot invoke harassment law
High Court overturns district court ruling on a doctor's statements against MINDEF
The Straits Times, 10 Dec 2015
The High Court ruled yesterday that the Government cannot invoke a law that protects people from harassment against socio-political blog The Online Citizen (TOC), which had published statements made by a doctor against the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF).
Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon overturned a ruling by a district court that the statements could be published only if they came with a note to state they had been declared false by the courts.
The case turned on the legal question of whether the Government can be considered a "person" under Section 15 of the Protection from Harassment Act, which allows victims of false statements to seek remedies from the court.
In the current case, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) had invoked the provision against Dr Ting Choon Meng, co-founder of medical device firm MobileStats Technologies, and the five individuals who run TOC.
In 2011, MobileStats sued MINDEF for patent infringement, claiming the ministry had copied its concept of a mobile emergency medical station. But the firm dropped its claim in January last year, citing a lack of funds. As a result, MobileStats' patent was revoked.
In January this year, TOC posted an interview with Dr Ting about the case. MINDEF responded with a statement on Facebook.
When Dr Ting ignored demands to stop making his statements about MINDEF, the AGC applied for a court order that his comments could not be published unless they came with a note to say that they were false and that the truth was in MINDEF's statement.
MINDEF took issue with Dr Ting's statement that it had knowingly infringed his patent and his claim that it had delayed court proceedings to wear him down financially.
Lawyers Eugene Thuraisingam, who acted for TOC, and Choo Zheng Xi, acting for Dr Ting, argued that MINDEF was not entitled to the provision.
In May, a district judge found both of Dr Ting's statements to be false, and granted the AGC's application. Dr Ting and TOC appealed.
JC See allowed the appeal on the basis that the Government is not a "person" under the provision and cannot apply for such an order.
He found only the second statement to be false, as it was not MINDEF but vendor Syntech Engineers that conducted the litigation.
He also noted that TOC had presented MINDEF's side of the story on its site.
Mr Thuraisingam and Mr Choo told The Straits Times that they did not seek costs against the AGC as the case involved a novel question of law of public interest.
MINDEF and the AGC are studying the written grounds before deciding on the next course of action.
*** Is Government a person? Court rules on anti-harassment law provision
In rare split decision, court rules that Govt cannot invoke law that lets persons stop publication of false statements
By Selina Lum, The Straits Times, 17 Jan 2017
In a rare split decision, the Court of Appeal ruled, 2-1, that the Government cannot invoke an anti-harassment law that allows persons to stop the publication of false statements against them.
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon was the sole dissenting judge, in a case that hinged on the narrow legal question of whether the Government could be considered a "person" under Section 15 of the Protection from Harassment Act.
Under the provision, a person who is a victim of a false statement can seek relief by asking the court to order that the statement not be published unless it drew attention to the truth.
In a written judgment released yesterday, Judges of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and Andrew Phang ruled that the law applied only to human beings.
However, Chief Justice Menon disagreed. He concluded that the Government does fall within the scope of "person" under the law and is able to apply under the provision for relief.
The decision arose in a case in which the Attorney-General had invoked the law against five individuals who ran socio-political site The Online Citizen (TOC) as well as Dr Ting Choon Meng, co-founder of medical device firm MobileStats Technologies.
MobileStats had sued the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) in 2011 for infringing its patent for a mobile emergency medical station. The suit was eventually dropped.
In January 2015, TOC published an interview with Dr Ting, in which he made various allegations against MINDEF.
The ministry responded on its Facebook page, refuting his allegations that it had knowingly infringed his patent and that it had dragged out court proceedings to wear him down financially.
TOC published MINDEF's statement in full and provided a link to it from the offending article.
The next month, the A-G sought a court order that the allegations cannot be published without a notification that they were false and that MINDEF's statement gave the truth.
In May 2015, a district judge found Dr Ting's statements to be false and granted the A-G's ap- plication.
TOC, represented by Mr Eugene Thuraisingam, and Dr Ting, represented by Mr Choo Zheng Xi, appealed to the High Court, arguing that MINDEF cannot apply for such an order as the Government is not a "person" under the provision.
Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon agreed, ruling that only human beings are entitled to apply for such court orders.
The A-G then appealed to the Court of Appeal, Singapore's highest court, arguing that there was no clear parliamentary intent to exclude the Government from the protection of the Act.
The A-G argued that the objective of the provision was to deal with false statements and not merely harassment, so the Government and corporate entities have the right to invoke the law.
Delivering the court's majority decision, Justice Phang referred to parliamentary debates in which Law Minister K. Shanmugam talked about giving people a "lower tier" remedy against falsehoods.
Justice Phang said it was clear that the minister's focus was solely on human beings, pointing to the many references to "victims" and "harassment" in his speech.
No references were made with regard to the rights of other entities, he noted.
Justice Phang added that even if the majority accepted that the law applies to MINDEF, they did not think it was "just and equitable" to grant an order against TOC and Dr Ting.
He noted that TOC had provided a balanced view.
"Additionally, MINDEF was anything but a helpless victim. It is a government agency possessed of significant resources and access to media channels."
Through his lawyer Mr Choo, Dr Ting said he was glad that this episode was concluded.
Mr Thuraisingam said his clients are "happy that the position they have taken has been vindicated by the High Court and the majority of the Court of Appeal".
CJ's dissenting judgment
By Selina Lum, The Straits Times, 17 Jan 2017
In his dissenting judgment, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon found that non-natural persons, such as the Government, can invoke Section 15 of the Protection from Harassment Act (Poha) as a remedy against false statements.
He based this on the ordinary meaning of the words in the provision, which refer to falsehood being made about "any person".
CJ Menon referred to the Interpretation Act, which states that "person" can include "any company or association or body of persons, corporate or unincorporated".
Turning to parliamentary debates, CJ Menon noted that in response to a question by an MP as to whether "person" included corporations, Law Minister K. Shanmugam had replied that the definition in the Interpretation Act would apply.
The Chief Justice found that Section 15 provides a standalone remedy to deal specifically with false statements, distinct from the other provisions in the Act.
He found that Dr Ting Choon Meng's false statement, alleging that the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) was deliberately delaying court proceedings, was a serious one. Even though The Online Citizen had published MINDEF's statement, CJ Menon said this was insufficient to draw attention to the falsehood and the true facts.
He noted that the nub of MINDEF's complaint is the false statement that it was conducting the litigation in an oppressive manner.
"This was untrue for the simple reason that the litigation involving Dr Ting was in fact controlled not by MINDEF, but by its contractor," he said.
Given the seriousness of the false statement and that the publication of a notice stating that Dr Ting's statement has been adjudged to be false was a "low- level restriction", he said he would have granted the order sought by MINDEF.
Law Ministry's response
By Selina Lum, The Straits Times, 17 Jan 2017
In response to the Court of Appeal's split decision, the Ministry of Law said the Government's policy intent was to allow natural persons, as well as the Government and corporations, to rely on Section 15 of the Protection from Harassment Act (Poha).
A Law Ministry spokesman noted that The Online Citizen (TOC) had published falsehoods about the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF). On the advice of the Attorney-General's Chambers, MINDEF had asked TOC to report corrections to the falsehoods.
"We note that the Court of Appeal has confirmed that TOC had indeed published falsehoods," said the spokesman.
But the majority ruled that only natural persons can rely on the provision, which requires those who have published falsehoods to also publish corrections and the true facts. Therefore, the Government cannot ask for corrections under Poha.
The spokesman noted that "fake news" has become a major problem for many societies.
"As recent events elsewhere show, the spreading of false and misleading information can be highly destructive of the institutions of democracy."
He added: "The Government notes the dissenting judgment of the learned Chief Justice, and the reasons the Chief Justice has given for his views.
"The Government will study the judgment, and consider what further steps it should take to correct the deliberate spreading of falsehoods."
Related
False Allegations against MINDEF in the patent infringement suit by MobileStats -20 Jan 2015
MINDEF Obliged to Defend Against Baseless Allegations Impinging on its Integrity -11 Feb 2015
Judgement on MINDEF's Application for Court Order under Protection from Harassment Act -16 May 2015
High Court overturns district court ruling on a doctor's statements against MINDEF
The Straits Times, 10 Dec 2015
The High Court ruled yesterday that the Government cannot invoke a law that protects people from harassment against socio-political blog The Online Citizen (TOC), which had published statements made by a doctor against the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF).
Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon overturned a ruling by a district court that the statements could be published only if they came with a note to state they had been declared false by the courts.
The case turned on the legal question of whether the Government can be considered a "person" under Section 15 of the Protection from Harassment Act, which allows victims of false statements to seek remedies from the court.
In the current case, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) had invoked the provision against Dr Ting Choon Meng, co-founder of medical device firm MobileStats Technologies, and the five individuals who run TOC.
In 2011, MobileStats sued MINDEF for patent infringement, claiming the ministry had copied its concept of a mobile emergency medical station. But the firm dropped its claim in January last year, citing a lack of funds. As a result, MobileStats' patent was revoked.
In January this year, TOC posted an interview with Dr Ting about the case. MINDEF responded with a statement on Facebook.
When Dr Ting ignored demands to stop making his statements about MINDEF, the AGC applied for a court order that his comments could not be published unless they came with a note to say that they were false and that the truth was in MINDEF's statement.
MINDEF took issue with Dr Ting's statement that it had knowingly infringed his patent and his claim that it had delayed court proceedings to wear him down financially.
Lawyers Eugene Thuraisingam, who acted for TOC, and Choo Zheng Xi, acting for Dr Ting, argued that MINDEF was not entitled to the provision.
In May, a district judge found both of Dr Ting's statements to be false, and granted the AGC's application. Dr Ting and TOC appealed.
JC See allowed the appeal on the basis that the Government is not a "person" under the provision and cannot apply for such an order.
He found only the second statement to be false, as it was not MINDEF but vendor Syntech Engineers that conducted the litigation.
He also noted that TOC had presented MINDEF's side of the story on its site.
Mr Thuraisingam and Mr Choo told The Straits Times that they did not seek costs against the AGC as the case involved a novel question of law of public interest.
MINDEF and the AGC are studying the written grounds before deciding on the next course of action.
*** Is Government a person? Court rules on anti-harassment law provision
In rare split decision, court rules that Govt cannot invoke law that lets persons stop publication of false statements
By Selina Lum, The Straits Times, 17 Jan 2017
In a rare split decision, the Court of Appeal ruled, 2-1, that the Government cannot invoke an anti-harassment law that allows persons to stop the publication of false statements against them.
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon was the sole dissenting judge, in a case that hinged on the narrow legal question of whether the Government could be considered a "person" under Section 15 of the Protection from Harassment Act.
Under the provision, a person who is a victim of a false statement can seek relief by asking the court to order that the statement not be published unless it drew attention to the truth.
In a written judgment released yesterday, Judges of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and Andrew Phang ruled that the law applied only to human beings.
However, Chief Justice Menon disagreed. He concluded that the Government does fall within the scope of "person" under the law and is able to apply under the provision for relief.
The decision arose in a case in which the Attorney-General had invoked the law against five individuals who ran socio-political site The Online Citizen (TOC) as well as Dr Ting Choon Meng, co-founder of medical device firm MobileStats Technologies.
MobileStats had sued the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) in 2011 for infringing its patent for a mobile emergency medical station. The suit was eventually dropped.
In January 2015, TOC published an interview with Dr Ting, in which he made various allegations against MINDEF.
The ministry responded on its Facebook page, refuting his allegations that it had knowingly infringed his patent and that it had dragged out court proceedings to wear him down financially.
TOC published MINDEF's statement in full and provided a link to it from the offending article.
The next month, the A-G sought a court order that the allegations cannot be published without a notification that they were false and that MINDEF's statement gave the truth.
In May 2015, a district judge found Dr Ting's statements to be false and granted the A-G's ap- plication.
TOC, represented by Mr Eugene Thuraisingam, and Dr Ting, represented by Mr Choo Zheng Xi, appealed to the High Court, arguing that MINDEF cannot apply for such an order as the Government is not a "person" under the provision.
Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon agreed, ruling that only human beings are entitled to apply for such court orders.
The A-G then appealed to the Court of Appeal, Singapore's highest court, arguing that there was no clear parliamentary intent to exclude the Government from the protection of the Act.
The A-G argued that the objective of the provision was to deal with false statements and not merely harassment, so the Government and corporate entities have the right to invoke the law.
Delivering the court's majority decision, Justice Phang referred to parliamentary debates in which Law Minister K. Shanmugam talked about giving people a "lower tier" remedy against falsehoods.
Justice Phang said it was clear that the minister's focus was solely on human beings, pointing to the many references to "victims" and "harassment" in his speech.
No references were made with regard to the rights of other entities, he noted.
Justice Phang added that even if the majority accepted that the law applies to MINDEF, they did not think it was "just and equitable" to grant an order against TOC and Dr Ting.
He noted that TOC had provided a balanced view.
"Additionally, MINDEF was anything but a helpless victim. It is a government agency possessed of significant resources and access to media channels."
Through his lawyer Mr Choo, Dr Ting said he was glad that this episode was concluded.
Mr Thuraisingam said his clients are "happy that the position they have taken has been vindicated by the High Court and the majority of the Court of Appeal".
CJ's dissenting judgment
By Selina Lum, The Straits Times, 17 Jan 2017
In his dissenting judgment, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon found that non-natural persons, such as the Government, can invoke Section 15 of the Protection from Harassment Act (Poha) as a remedy against false statements.
He based this on the ordinary meaning of the words in the provision, which refer to falsehood being made about "any person".
CJ Menon referred to the Interpretation Act, which states that "person" can include "any company or association or body of persons, corporate or unincorporated".
Turning to parliamentary debates, CJ Menon noted that in response to a question by an MP as to whether "person" included corporations, Law Minister K. Shanmugam had replied that the definition in the Interpretation Act would apply.
The Chief Justice found that Section 15 provides a standalone remedy to deal specifically with false statements, distinct from the other provisions in the Act.
He found that Dr Ting Choon Meng's false statement, alleging that the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) was deliberately delaying court proceedings, was a serious one. Even though The Online Citizen had published MINDEF's statement, CJ Menon said this was insufficient to draw attention to the falsehood and the true facts.
He noted that the nub of MINDEF's complaint is the false statement that it was conducting the litigation in an oppressive manner.
"This was untrue for the simple reason that the litigation involving Dr Ting was in fact controlled not by MINDEF, but by its contractor," he said.
Given the seriousness of the false statement and that the publication of a notice stating that Dr Ting's statement has been adjudged to be false was a "low- level restriction", he said he would have granted the order sought by MINDEF.
Law Ministry's response
By Selina Lum, The Straits Times, 17 Jan 2017
In response to the Court of Appeal's split decision, the Ministry of Law said the Government's policy intent was to allow natural persons, as well as the Government and corporations, to rely on Section 15 of the Protection from Harassment Act (Poha).
A Law Ministry spokesman noted that The Online Citizen (TOC) had published falsehoods about the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF). On the advice of the Attorney-General's Chambers, MINDEF had asked TOC to report corrections to the falsehoods.
"We note that the Court of Appeal has confirmed that TOC had indeed published falsehoods," said the spokesman.
But the majority ruled that only natural persons can rely on the provision, which requires those who have published falsehoods to also publish corrections and the true facts. Therefore, the Government cannot ask for corrections under Poha.
The spokesman noted that "fake news" has become a major problem for many societies.
"As recent events elsewhere show, the spreading of false and misleading information can be highly destructive of the institutions of democracy."
He added: "The Government notes the dissenting judgment of the learned Chief Justice, and the reasons the Chief Justice has given for his views.
"The Government will study the judgment, and consider what further steps it should take to correct the deliberate spreading of falsehoods."
Related
False Allegations against MINDEF in the patent infringement suit by MobileStats -20 Jan 2015
MINDEF Obliged to Defend Against Baseless Allegations Impinging on its Integrity -11 Feb 2015
Judgement on MINDEF's Application for Court Order under Protection from Harassment Act -16 May 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment