Activist Kokila Annamalai contests charge of allegedly defying POFMA order in first such trial

The point of a correction notice is to give members of the public access to both the original article and the government’s statement, so that they can form their own conclusions, the prosecution said.

Ms Koh said that Annamalai knew about the correction directions and the available challenges but chose to ignore them.

The reasons for her defiance are set out in an article she later published, titled: “I Defy: Why I am not complying with my POFMA Correction Direction”.

The sub-heading read: “I said what I said.”

Ms Koh also said that Annamalai should not be allowed to use the current proceedings to mount a “backdoor challenge” to the correction direction.

This hearing is also not a forum to hear the contents of the correction direction, she added.

“A recipient who receives a correction direction must comply with it first, then challenge it through the proper channels, not the other way around,” Ms Koh pointed out.

“The accused is well aware of that.”

She urged the court to confine the proceedings to the elements of the charge and to reject “any attempt by the accused to introduce irrelevant and unrelated issues”.

“She’s trying to use this criminal trial for her own publicity, and we urge the court to reject this,” Ms Koh added.

At this, Annamalai smiled and looked toward the public gallery, which was filled with supporters.

This included actors Lim Kay Siu and Neo Swee Lin, who were charged alongside Annamalai in relation to the Public Order Act for taking part in an assembly at the State Courts.

DEFENCE SPEAKS

Annamalai is defended by lawyers Too Xing Ji and Tham Lijing.

Mr Tham asked to speak, but Mr Koh objected, saying that the defence had not been called.

However, Principal District Judge Toh Han Li allowed the defence to speak.

Mr Tham then said that POFMA was not intended to apply to people such as the accused.

“She is a girl from Clementi. She went to MGS (Methodist Girls’ School) on Blackmore Drive. She graduated with a First Class from NUS (National University of Singapore). After she graduated, Your Honour, she joined AWARE where she helped our abused women,” Mr Tham said.

Judge Toh interjected and asked him to get to the point.

“The point is,” Mr Tham continued, “She met a man on death row … who’s the subject of the Facebook post and X post … he was a convicted drug trafficker.”

The judge interjected again and asked him not to go into “a lot of detail”.

“The correction direction is invalid on its face,” Mr Tham said.

He added that the defence has three points. First, that POFMA does not apply to facts that are true, and that it does not apply to opinions.

Second, Annamalai’s post did not make or contain the contested subject statements.

Third, the correction notice is 330 words long and “exceeds the powers granted by POFMA”.

“We are saying – Section 11 of POFMA grants the government the right of reply, the opportunity to set the record straight. Section 11 does not authorise the government to put a 330-word essay on a person’s own online space.”

Mr Tham argued that the defence’s position is confirmed by parliament’s intention.

“During the POFMA debates, it was recognised by parliament that the Bill would not reach statements like these,” he said.

He said that the defence would ask the court to find that the correction direction is invalid. And if it is invalid, then the charge must fail.

The prosecution then called its first witness, Ms Yeo Xue Ying, a cluster director at the POFMA Office.