Connect with us


Reform Party chief issued seventh POFMA direction for alleged false claims about judges’ performance bonuses

Reform Party Chief Kenneth Jeyaretnam received his seventh POFMA correction on Wednesday for falsely claiming that the Prime Minister and Law Minister can influence High Court Judges’ bonuses.



On Wednesday (29 May), Kenneth Jeyaretnam, the chief of the Reform Party, received his seventh correction direction under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), issued by Edwin Tong, the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, and Second Minister for Law.

This latest directive responds to allegations that the POFMA office said to have made in a Facebook post on 25 May by Mr Jeyaretnam, which falsely claimed that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Law could influence the performance bonuses of High Court Judges.

The POFMA Office stated that Mr Jeyaretnam’s claims were incorrect, clarifying, “The remuneration of Supreme Court Judges, including their bonuses, is determined by the Chief Justice within a legal framework established by the Judges’ Remuneration Act 1994, following guidelines set by the Legislature under Article 98(6) of the Constitution.”

The correction direction mandates that Mr Jeyaretnam include a notice in his original post directing readers to a government clarification, which outlines the truth about how judges’ salaries and bonuses are determined.

Furthermore, the POFMA Office addressed other misleading claims in Mr Jeyaretnam’s post regarding the judicial appointment process.

They emphasized that Supreme Court Judges are appointed by the President, based on the advice of the Prime Minister, who consults the Chief Justice. The process also involves consultations with a broad spectrum of the legal community and others familiar with potential appointees.

The office also refuted Mr Jeyaretnam’s assertions about Singapore’s defamation laws, highlighting that these laws protect all individuals against false allegations that may harm their reputations and are not designed exclusively to shield those in power. They noted the example of respected opposition politician Chiam See Tong, who has both utilized and been protected by these laws without facing lawsuits for his criticisms of the government.

Mr Jeyaretnam’s post was in response to a Facebook post by Mr Lee Hsien Yang concerning the concluded defamation suits filed by the Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Vivian Balakrishnan. The High Court ruled in favour of the two ministers and ordered Mr Lee to pay S$620,000 in damages and costs.

Previously, in his sixth POFMA direction, the Singapore government stated, “The government takes a serious view of Mr Jeyaretnam’s conduct and will consider if any further action should be taken against him.”

In the latest direction, the POFMA office noted, “His latest post continues to propagate false and unfounded statements, reflecting a deliberate intent to undermine our public institutions.”

As of 5:30 pm on Wednesday, Mr Jeyaretnam had complied with the directions to insert the notice in the post. He, however, noted in the comment section that he intends to appeal against the direction as he had “merely asked a question”.


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

Keep using the POFMA to stifle people. Next use the Courts. After which the ICA to ensure they cannot return to Singapore. PAP style of governance! Acceptable to the 70% Stepford Wives!

I always continue to be confused by law, esp the words lawyers and judges put out – within is NOT inside.

If I understand POFMA which can at times BE RETROACTIVELY used and enforced why the judges involved in this lie, was and are not taken to tasks.

PS. Actually in SG, there are a lot of language twists, language rock and rolls, and language dance – mainly the music for these dances are POLITICS in a pseudo democracy.

Defensive People’s Action’s party – with all the defences to mount, some mounted feverishly, some mounted childishly, some mounted CORRUPTEDLY, in the eyes of observers. Can observers be FAULTED with, AND by POFMA which ACTUALLY itself CAN be POFMA-ed too, bcz the PARTY of Public Opinions says so.

It seems like someone has been asking the right questions.

7th POFMA?
I cant understand this …Mr KJ cant be just posting inaccuracies all the time , right..?
What advantage would he gain by it?

Okayyyy … but is the Chief Justice “influence-zad” by the PM or the Law Minister? What about the Chief Justice’s own bonus? 🙂 Bwah ha ha …