The recent sentencing of former Transport Minister Iswaran to 12 months’ imprisonment for accepting gifts during his time in office raises serious questions about the 2018 criminal defamation case filed against me.

Iswaran’s unethical actions—including accepting more than S$400,000 in benefits from businessmen—stand in stark contrast to the image of an untouchable and clean Cabinet that Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Jonathan Au Yong portrayed when he initiated the defamation case against The Online Citizen (TOC).

This defamation case arose from a letter published by TOC on 4 September 2018, which contained the phrase “corruption at the highest echelons.”

DSP Au Yong interpreted this as a direct attack on Cabinet members’ integrity, filed the police report on his own initiative and pursued the case based on the assumption that the Cabinet’s integrity was under attack, leading to criminal defamation charges against me, as TOC’s chief editor, and contributor Daniel De Costa.

However, Iswaran’s unethical behaviour during the same period raises the question: would Au Yong have pursued the case with such intensity had he known about the actions of this senior Cabinet member?

The Filing of the Police Report

Contrary to earlier claims by the Singapore government, it was not the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) that filed the police report in response to the allegedly defamatory letter.

During the trial in 2020, it was revealed that DSP Au Yong had filed the report on his own initiative on 8 October 2018 after receiving a letter from IMDA from then-Director of CID Deputy Commissioner Florence Chua.

This letter, dated 5 October 2018, was not a formal police complaint but a request for the police to follow up on a breach of the Internet Code of Conduct related to TOC’s publication.

DSP Au Yong admitted in court that he took it upon himself to file the police report, believing an offence had been committed.

The complaint he submitted on 8 October mentioned IMDA’s 5 October letter but contained no specific details of defamation or any particular offence.

This vague report and his initiative to file it set the entire criminal defamation investigation in motion.

During cross-examination, my lawyer, Remy Choo, clarified that IMDA had not pursued any further action regarding the letter.

When questioned if it was normal for a police officer to file a report based on limited information, Au Yong responded that it was not unusual for an officer to take such steps based on preliminary information about a potential crime.

Au Yong’s Role in the Investigation

After filing the open-ended police report himself, DSP Au Yong led the investigation.

This included searching my home, seizing my electronic devices and conducting several hours of interviews before ultimately having the case set as having committed criminal defamation against Cabinet members.

Au Yong, a Singapore Police Force scholarship holder and political science graduate, testified that he believed the phrase “corruption at the highest echelons” referred specifically to the Singapore Cabinet, rather than other high-level political bodies, such as the Central Executive Committee of the People’s Action Party (PAP).

I had argued that the phrase, in the context of the entire letter, was about the 38 Oxley Road dispute, a high-profile public issue at the time. I had no reason to believe that it referred specifically to Cabinet members, and thus lacked the intent, or mens rea, to commit defamation.

When Mr Choo suggested that the phrase “corruption at the highest echelons” could have referred to the PAP leadership rather than the Cabinet, DSP Au Yong dismissed this possibility, arguing that the letter’s references to governance and policy pointed directly to the Cabinet. Au Yong later conceded that the phrase should be understood in its full context.

However, the prosecution—Deputy Public Prosecutors Mohamed Faizal Mohamed Abdul Kadir, Senthilkumaran Sabapathy, and Sheryl Yeo—argued that a contextual interpretation of the article clearly imputed corruption to members of the Singapore Cabinet.

They stated that the article made a serious and baseless allegation against the Cabinet, and that both De Costa and I would have known that the imputation would harm the Cabinet’s reputation. The prosecution further contended that neither of us had any cogent basis for the allegation, and that it was evident we had not acted in good faith.

This interpretation set the stage for the criminal charges, portraying the Cabinet as victims of a baseless attack on their integrity.

Ultimately, District Judge Ng Peng Hong sentenced both Daniel De Costa and me to three weeks’ imprisonment. De Costa was also sentenced to three months’ jail for an offence under the Computer Misuse Act, after the judge found the criminal defamation charges to be proven and accordingly convicted us.

Yet, Iswaran’s recent conviction exposes significant flaws in this narrative by the prosecution.

Iswaran’s Conviction and Its Impact

The conviction of Iswaran for accepting gifts from businessmen Ong Beng Seng and David Lum during the period in question exposes a critical flaw in the narrative that the TOC letter unjustly attacked the Cabinet’s integrity.

Iswaran’s unethical conduct undermines the notion that the Cabinet was beyond reproach and raises serious doubts about the legitimacy of the defamation charges brought against me and Daniel De Costa.

Iswaran’s actions were far from minor. The court found that he had accepted more than S$400,000 worth of benefits, including private flights and premium event tickets, from businessmen with vested interests.

In particular, his dealings with Ong, which began as early as 2015, continued when TOC’s article was published in 2018 and carried on throughout the trial of the defamation charges against me.

The specific items Iswaran received from Ong during this period of time include:

• Around November 2015
  • Two tickets to the show Thriller worth about £200 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)
  • Two tickets to the show The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time worth about £270 from Ong through Como Holdings (UK)
  • Two tickets to the football match for West Ham United FC v Everton FC (Boleyn Ground) worth about £468 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings UK
  • Two tickets to the football match for Arsenal FC v Tottenham Hotspur FC (Emirates) worth about £550 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)

  In September 2016

  • Ten Green Room tickets to the 2016 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix worth about S$42,265 from Mr Ong through Singapore GP

  In September 2017

  • Ten Green Room tickets to the 2017 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix worth about S$42,265 from Mr Ong through Singapore GP
  • Five Boardwalk tickets to the 2017 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix worth about S$40,000 from Mr Ong through Singapore GP

  Around December 2017

  • Four tickets to the show Book of Mormon worth about £540 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)
  • Four tickets to the football match of Chelsea FC v Southampton FC (Stamford Bridge) worth about £700 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)
  • Four tickets to the shows Harry Potter and the Cursed Child: Part 1 and Harry Potter and the Cursed Child: Part 2, worth about £1,000 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)
  • Four tickets to the football match for Arsenal FC v Liverpool FC (Emirates) worth about £1,100 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)
  • Four tickets to the show Kinky Boots worth about £300 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)

  In September 2018

  • Six Twenty3 tickets to the 2018 Singapore Formula Grand Prix worth about S$13,193.10 from Mr Ong through Singapore GP
  • Thirteen general admission tickets to the 2018 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix worth about S$16,744 from Mr Ong through Singapore GP

  Around December 2018

  • Four tickets to the show The Play That Goes Wrong worth about £380 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)
  • Four tickets to the show School of Rock worth about £560 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)
  • Four tickets to the football match for Chelsea FC v Manchester City FC worth at least £120 from Mr Ong

  Around June 2019

  • Four tickets to the show Hamilton worth about £400 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)
  • Four tickets to the show Waitress worth about £524 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)
  • Four tickets to the show Betrayal worth about £1,080 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)

  Around September 2019

  • Six Green Room tickets to the 2019 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix worth about S$26,643 from Mr Ong through Singapore GP
  • Sixteen general admission tickets to the 2019 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix worth about S$20,608 from Mr Ong through Singapore GP

  Around December 2021

  • Two tickets for the show Back to the Future worth about £449 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)
  • Two tickets to the show Romeo & Juliet worth about £250 from Mr Ong through Como Holdings (UK)

Therefore, while I was being prosecuted for allegedly defaming the Cabinet, one of its most senior members was engaging in unethical behaviour that severely damaged public trust.

The 2023 Appeal and Clarification

In 2023, the courts re-evaluated the defamation case and reduced the severity of the charges.

The court ruled that the phrase “corruption at the highest echelons” did not accuse individual Cabinet members of corruption but rather implied incompetence for allowing corruption to occur under their leadership.

This significantly lessened the gravity of the defamation charges, as the imputation was no longer a direct attack on personal integrity. Consequently, my original sentence of three weeks’ imprisonment was commuted to a fine of S$8,000.

The judgment acknowledged that while the imputation still carried reputational harm, it did not strike at the core of the Cabinet’s integrity as the prosecution had originally argued.

This reduction in the defamatory statement’s meaning is especially relevant now, given what we know about Iswaran’s misconduct. His unethical actions cast doubt on the assumption that the Cabinet was beyond reproach, especially considering their failure to prevent corruption under their leadership.

Even though Iswaran has been convicted of lesser offences under Section 165 of the Penal Code, the public prosecutors have argued that the corruption charges against him were not dropped but instead amended.

The Problem with Criminal Defamation

Moreover, the use of criminal defamation is deeply problematic.

In a civil defamation case, Iswaran would have been required to testify as one of the alleged victims of defamation.

If he had denied corrupt acts under oath, the revelations of his unethical behaviour would have left him vulnerable to perjury charges.

But under criminal defamation, the alleged victims of defamation are not required to testify for the alleged falsehoods in court, shielding them from scrutiny, leaving me and my lawyers without recourse to challenge the claims.

When DSP Au Yong filed the police report against TOC, he testified that he believed the phrase “corruption at the highest echelons” referred to the Singapore Cabinet, a conclusion he reached based on the context of the letter and its criticism of the PAP leadership.

But today, we know that at least one high-ranking Cabinet member was guilty of unethical behaviour.

Had DSP Au Yong been aware of Iswaran’s conduct—accepting gifts while chairing the Formula 1 steering committee, accepting personal benefits from businessmen connected to his official duties—would he have pursued the same line of action against TOC?

Looking back at the phrase — according to what the court described — today, one would probably consider that it was closer to the truth than the authorities were willing to admit.

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), an advocacy group opposed to the death penalty, was issued its third Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) correction direction on 5 October 2024.

The correction was ordered by Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, following TJC’s publication of what the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) alleges to be false information regarding Singapore’s death row procedures and the prosecution of drug trafficking cases.

These statements were made on TJC’s website and across its social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter).

In addition to TJC, civil activist Kokila Annamalai was also issued a correction direction by the minister over posts she made on Facebook and X between 4 and 5 October 2024.

According to MHA, these posts echoed similar views on the death penalty and the legal procedures for drug-related offences, and contained statements that the ministry claims are false concerning the treatment of death row prisoners and the state’s legal responsibilities in drug trafficking cases.

MHA stated that the posts suggested the government schedules and stays executions arbitrarily, without due regard to legal processes, and that the state does not bear the burden of proving drug trafficking charges.

However, these alleged falsehoods are contested by MHA, which maintains that the government strictly follows legal procedures, scheduling executions only after all legal avenues have been exhausted, and that the state always carries the burden of proof in such cases.

In its official release, MHA emphasised, “The prosecution always bears the legal burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and this applies to all criminal offences, including drug trafficking.”

It also pointed to an article on the government fact-checking site Factually to provide further clarification on the issues raised.

As a result of these allegations, both TJC and Annamalai are now required to post correction notices. TJC must display these corrections on its website and social media platforms, while Annamalai is required to carry similar notices on her Facebook and X posts.

TikTok has also been issued a targeted correction direction, requiring the platform to communicate the correction to all Singapore-based users who viewed the related TJC post.

In a statement following the issuance of the correction direction, TJC strongly rejected the government’s claims. The group criticised the POFMA law, calling it a “political weapon used to crush dissent,” and argued that the order was more about the exercise of state power than the pursuit of truth. “We have put up the Correction Directions not because we accept any of what the government asserts, but because of the grossly unjust terms of the POFMA law,” TJC stated.

TJC further argued that the government’s control over Singapore’s media landscape enables it to push pro-death penalty views without opposition. The group also stated that it would not engage in prolonged legal battles over the POFMA correction orders, opting to focus on its abolitionist work instead.

This marks the third time TJC has been subject to a POFMA correction direction in recent months.

The group was previously issued two orders in August 2024 for making similar statements concerning death row prisoners.

In its latest statement, MHA noted that despite being corrected previously, TJC had repeated what the ministry views as falsehoods.

MHA also criticised TJC for presenting the perspective of a convicted drug trafficker without acknowledging the harm caused to victims of drug abuse.

Annamalai, a prominent civil rights activist, is also known for her involvement in various social justice campaigns. She was charged in June 2024 for her participation in a pro-Palestinian procession near the Istana. Her posts, now subject to correction, contained information similar to those presented by TJC regarding death penalty procedures and drug-related cases.

POFMA, which was introduced in 2019, allows the government to issue correction directions when it deems falsehoods are being spread online.

Critics of the law argue that it can be used to suppress dissent, while the government asserts that it is a necessary tool for combating misinformation. The law has been frequently invoked against opposition politicians and activists.

As of October 2024, Minister K Shanmugam has issued 17 POFMA directions, more than any other minister. Shanmugam, who was instrumental in introducing POFMA, is followed by National Development Minister Desmond Lee, who has issued 10 POFMA directions.

Major media outlets, including The Straits Times, Channel News Asia, and Mothership, have covered the POFMA directions. However, as of the time of writing, none have included TJC’s response rejecting the government’s allegations.