Kuala lumpur: The High Court here today dismissed a civil suit filed by Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) challenging Singapore's attempt to enforce a Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) order against the rights group in 2020. Judge Datuk Azizan Md Arshad rejected LFL's request for a declaration that POFMA has no extraterritorial effect, particularly in relation to a Malaysian citizen's right to freedom of speech under Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution.
According to BERNAMA News Agency, Judge Azizan stated that there was no obligation on the part of the defendant, the Malaysian Government, to ensure that the laws and actions of a foreign state and its officials comply with the rights of Malaysian citizens under the Federal Constitution. He emphasized that the Malaysian court does not have a duty to decline POFMA, as the law was enacted by the Singapore Parliament. Although POFMA possesses extraterritorial effects, it must be subject to Malaysian law before it can be enforced against LFL.
The judge further explained that the argument against POFMA's implementation in Malaysia, due to its lack of passage by the Malaysian Parliament, is inaccurate. He clarified that foreign state laws do not require recognition by the Malaysian Parliament merely because they have extraterritorial jurisdiction elements. He reiterated that POFMA remains a Singapore law and is not recognized as Malaysian law, emphasizing that it has not been incorporated into Malaysian legislation.
The court also acknowledged that several Malaysian laws, such as the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, have extraterritorial effects. Azizan noted that the Malaysian Government periodically amends laws to extend their extraterritorial application, citing the recent amendment of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017 to expand its extraterritorial jurisdiction as an example.
In the originating summons filed in 2020, LFL argued that the Singapore government issued a "correction direction" on January 22, 2020, following a press statement by LFL alleging unlawful execution methods in Singapore's Changi prison. The Singapore government claimed the article contained false statements and directed LFL to insert a correction notice, with non-compliance constituting an offence under POFMA.
LFL contended that the "correction direction" was illegal, oppressive, and an attempt to silence Malaysian citizens exercising their right to freedom of speech. They argued that Singapore had no jurisdiction to issue such a direction to them. Senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin represented the Malaysian government, while lawyer Datuk Dr Gurdial Singh Njiar acted for LFL.