Singapore
Tech giants’ silence sparks speculation over minister’s involvement in POHA legal actions
The silence from tech giants Google and TikTok regarding POHA applications filed by an individual named Kasiviswanathan Shanmugam fuels speculation about the claimant’s identity, compounded by silence from the minister’s office.
![](https://gutzymedia.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp/2023/10/17062312/Google-Tiktok-K-Shan.png)
Singapore Court Listings Stir Speculation Over High-Profile POHA Applications Against Tech Giants
Court listings in Singapore have sparked a wave of speculation as an individual named Kasiviswanathan Shanmugam, sharing the same name as Singapore’s Minister for Law and Home Affairs, has filed three applications against the social media behemoth TikTok under the Protection from Harassment Act 2014 (POHA).
The proceedings are scheduled to take the stage on the 15th of November, raising eyebrows over the identity of the claimant and the impetus for this legal action.
Amidst the opacity shrouding the claimant’s motives, an inquiry has been launched seeking clarification from the minister’s office regarding his potential involvement in the case poised before the Singapore State Court.
Currently, the minister’s office has not responded to the query sent earlier, nor to the previously published article, leaving the claimant’s identity as the minister unconfirmed.
Compounding the mystery, the individual has also initiated a separate legal challenge against another tech titan, Google LLC. Originally set for a hearing on the 19th of October, the proceeding was unexpectedly removed from the state court’s hearing list, leaving the reasons – whether dismissal or adjournment – as yet undisclosed.
The POHA, enacted in 2014, serves as a bulwark against harassment, addressing emerging threats like cyberbullying and online stalking by providing victims with a pathway to legal redress.
The Home Affairs and Law minister, Mr Shanmugam, noted for his advocacy for stronger legal safeguards, has recently underscored the urgency of bolstering the legislation to protect individuals against the scourge of harmful online content.
The minister’s call to arms, voiced at the Online Harms Symposium at Singapore Management University last month, champions the expansion of POHA to grant victims the power to secure protection and pursue justice.
In light of these unfolding events, repeated attempts by Gutzy to elicit comments from Google and TikTok have been met with silence.
This lack of response has only fueled further conjecture that the applicant may indeed be the distinguished minister, adding a layer of intrigue to the already complex legal drama.
![](https://gutzy.asia/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Gutzy-Logo-whiteS.png)
-
Politics1 week ago
Jamus Lim on Minister Chee Hong Tat’s remarks on fiscal policy: Calls for genuine debate over rhetoric
-
Politics2 weeks ago
SM Lee: Singaporeans must ‘change attitudes’ as Govt promises ‘bold and necessary changes’
-
Community1 week ago
Toast Box faces backlash and boycott calls amid price increases
-
Media1 week ago
Notice to Our Readers: Moving Back to The Online Citizen
-
Singapore2 weeks ago
Singapore introduces new scheme in April 2025 offering up to S$6,000 in financial support for retrenched workers
-
Politics1 week ago
Jamus Lim raises concerns over high cost of living and its impact on Singaporeans’ sense of belonging
-
Opinion1 week ago
Chee Hong Tat’s call for fiscal prudence rings hollow amid contradictory government spending
-
Singapore1 week ago
Tan Suee Chieh: Sacrificing NTUC Income’s values for short-term gains undermines its foundation
Will tik tok,google etc etc FART in his face????
Gangstalking or organized harrassment is getting rampant in Singapore.
Despite the Ministerial Statements, the findings of the CPIB and the impending lawsuit against LHY, true blue Singaporeans must have been repeatedly exposed to all the TikTok videos alluding to non transparency and privilege treatment. Perhaps since these videos cannot be eradicated voluntarily by TikTok, a court order is necessary. A court order can only materialised if there is a lawsuit and the defendant is found guilty, thus legally bound to comply with the judgement, whatever the judgement is.
Perhaps it’s just case of mistaken identity where the initial K S is concerned.