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

SINGAPORE: Activist Kokila Annamalai went on trial on Wednesday (Oct 7) for failing to comply with a correction direction issued to her under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA).

This was in relation to posts that she made on social media in October 2024 about a drug trafficker on death row.

This is the first trial of its kind under POFMA since it became law in 2019.

The POFMA Office stated that two false statements were made in the posts. First, that the government schedules and stays executions "arbitrarily and without regard for due legal process".

Second, that the state does not bear the legal burden of proving a drug trafficking charge against the accused person.

When issued with the correction direction from the POFMA Office on the instruction of then Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam, Annamalai allegedly put up a post saying that she defied the correction direction.

Under the law, a person issued a correction direction must first comply with it by putting up a correction notice on the offending post before taking any actions to appeal against the direction.

In this case, Annamalai allegedly did not and has not complied, the court heard.

The 38-year-old Singaporean woman, whose full name is Annamalai Kokila Parvathi, faces another charge under the Public Order Act for taking part in an assembly publicising the cause of abolishing capital punishment in Singapore.

This charge was stood down or set aside while the POFMA-related charge is tried.

Deputy Public Prosecutors Timotheus Koh and Stephanie Koh told the court in their opening address that this was a "straightforward case of deliberate non-compliance".

They said that there is a statutory framework for a person to challenge the issuance of the correction direction, but Annamalai did not challenge it under the allowed methods.

This is by first appealing to the minister, and then if this fails, to the High Court.

The point of a correction notice is so that members of the public will have access to both the original article and the government's statement, in order to 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 in the direction of 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 and Mr Koh objected, saying that the defence has 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.

Mr Koh asked her about how the correction direction was issued, and Ms Yeo testified about how three emails were sent to Annamalai.

She said that recipients of correction directions sometimes may miss the emails from the office, or may not have read them, and several reminder emails were therefore sent.

"We would like to give the recipients ample notice and chances to comply," she said.

She also said that Annamalai has not complied by the deadline, nor has she done so to date.

The trial continues.

Earlier on Wednesday, the court granted Annamalai her request to go to Chennai, India, later this month.

This was with bail conditions that include another S$5,000 (US$3,910) bail on top of her existing bail of S$5,000.

If convicted of failing to comply with a correction direction without reasonable excuse, Annamalai can be jailed for up to 12 months or fined up to S$20,000, or both.