Connect with us


Why Isn’t the woman who lied facing charges alongside WUSG’s admin in recent defamation case?

Ariffin Sha of Wake Up Singapore was charged with criminal defamation over a false miscarriage story at KKH published in 2022, while the woman who fabricated the tale has not been charged. Why the discrepancy in accountability?



I find myself perplexed and troubled by a recent case involving Ariffin Sha, the administrator of Wake Up Singapore (WUSG).

On 24 April, Ariffin was charged with criminal defamation for publishing an article about a purported miscarriage at KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital (KKH) in 2022.

The charge stems from a post dated 23 March 2022, in which WUSG carried a harrowing account titled “The baby is probably dead – Woman shares a harrowing account of her miscarriage at KKH A&E.”

This article suggested that a woman suffered a miscarriage after a lengthy wait at the hospital’s Accident & Emergency Department, due to alleged mismanagement of healthcare services.

Two days after the article’s publication, on 25 March 2022, KKH refuted the allegations as false and filed a police report.

The situation took an even more dramatic turn when the source of the article, the woman involved, admitted to fabricating the entire story after KKH went public with its findings.

Following that, WUSG immediately issued an apology, stating that her evidence might have been doctored, including call logs and invoices.

Despite her admission to WUSG of lying about her circumstances and the significant impact of her actions on KKH’s reputation, she has not been charged by the police after their lengthy two-year investigation into the case.

This raises a critical question: Why is the woman, whose fabricated story led to the defamation charge against Ariffin, not facing any legal consequences? Is she going to be even issued with a stern warning?

This query of prosecution discretion becomes more pressing when considering past instances of criminal defamation, such as my own case in 2018 involving Daniel de Costa, where both the publisher and the writer of the defamatory content were held accountable.

In our case, both parties were subjected to a raid at our residences in 2018 following a police report filed by an officer and subsequently faced charges under Section 499, accused of defaming the cabinet by alleging corruption—before the case involving S Iswaran came to light in 2023.

If a similar logic of criminal culpability were applied, shouldn’t the woman also be held accountable, especially given her admission of falsehood?

Note that section 499 reads, “Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs, or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person, intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.”

Given that the woman knew what she was telling WUSG was untrue, she surely would have understood that her actions could harm the reputation of KKH.

On the contrary, WUSG immediately retracted the post once it was informed that the information provided was false and obediently complied with the directions under the POFMA correction directive issued.

Yet, ultimately, they decided to charge only the publisher and not the person who lied.

This somehow suggests to me a potentially unsettling trend where individuals or entities that publish based on provided information without knowing it to be false, face harsher repercussions than those who originate the lies.

This situation mirrors the broader social and political implications observed in other high-profile cases, such as the controversy surrounding former Workers’ Party MP Raeesah Khan.

It seems that those who are deceived into spreading misinformation may end up shouldering more severe consequences than the deceivers themselves.

Share this post via:
Continue Reading
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Not surprising coming from shittypore,another *victim of the attack dog” – by stiffling alternative news sites.

I have come to see that the ones in power are liars and bullies, quick to POFMA when their lies are exposed. I guess power and money gives you the impunity to think you are infallible.

This regime and their ensemble of “attack avenues”, ie the press, SPF and AG determine and decide on their targets, … and the rest will be history !!!

Not much point in attempting to understand the rationale behind this or them !!!

Well, the regime stated clearly who’s calling the shot! How else is a regime, non? alternatively, seek counsel and start the rolling by legal recourse. Reporting is one thing, being stupid is another just the like of Leong Mun Wai …

Hospital or any local medical insitution in your country is just trying their best to treat patients who come for treatment. They might not be top notch in some service area but hey, if you want the best you got to go to places like Mt E , Novena etc.
Yet these fuckers ,just like oppo losers and fuckers would just go and find trouble just becos they link such hospitals like KKH and re-structured hosp as PAP run entities.
I hope all these bastaxds, who went to stir trouble get the max sentence for their mischief!

It’s not perplexing at all really. The authorities chose who to charge based on how much political mileage they can get out of it.

The key words in your extracted law is “make or publish”. For this case I suppose the woman didn’t do anything except furnishing the false information to WUSG. That’s why the law cannot go after her. As for d coster case he is the editor and published the article under another moniker, using toc platform. Hence both are held liable. Intricacies of law is like that, depends how it is worded.

Since Iswaran is up for corruption, is the State going to pay Terry compensation for the wrongful verdict and police action?

Why is it they are keeping quiet on OBS of Hotel Properties? Is it some curious relationships tying up OBS, his wife, his in laws, his outlaws (his whatever ‘money-relationships’) that they are weighing up how to proceed, what to proceed, when to proceed? And of course the politics of….