[ad_1]
SINGAPORE: The High Court will decide whether Temasek Holdings CEO Ho Ching is in the public interest after The Online Citizen (TOC) requested a judicial review, Deputy Finance Minister Indranee Rajah said on Tuesday. Parliament (May 5).
The TOC sociopolitical website was one of four parties that received correction instructions on April 19 under the Online Misrepresentation and Misrepresentation Protection Act (POFMA) regarding Mdm Ho’s salary statements.
Ad
“On April 29, 2020, The Online Citizen filed an application with the Superior Court seeking a judicial review of the decision to issue the correction address,” Indranee said Tuesday.
“One of the issues TOC has raised in court relates to the public interest motives under the Online Misrepresentation and Tamper Protection Act.”
She was responding to a question from Workers’ Party (NCMP) non-parliamentary member of parliament Leon Perera about how statements about Mdm Ho’s salary harm the public interest.
A HardwareZone user, The Temasek Review Facebook page, Facebook page and TOC website, and Mr. Lim Tean received correction instructions under POFMA on April 19 after they posted or shared claims that Mdm Ho’s salary was “approximately S $ 100 million”.
“Several online publications contained a false statement regarding the remuneration of the CEO and Executive Director of Temasek Holdings Pte Ltd, Ms. Ho Ching,” the POFMA office had said.
“The authors made several claims that Temasek CEO Ms. Ho Ching’s annual salary is” NT $ 2.1 billion, “” about SGD 100 million “or” S $ 99 million a year, “” he added. the Government in your Factually article. He said that all of these claims are false.
Temasek had said earlier that day that the claims were false, adding that Mdm Ho’s annual compensation “is not the highest within Temasek, nor is it among the top five highest-paid executives.” Mdm Ho is the wife of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
READ: Affirms Ho Ching’s annual salary is “around S $ 100 million” false, Temasek says
POFMA orders can be issued if a statement is false and it is in the public interest for a minister to act.
TOC said in a Facebook post on April 19 that it would apply to the Superior Court to challenge the correction address.
On Tuesday, Ms. Indranee said that it was not appropriate to answer Mr. Perera’s question since the matter is now before the court.
Mr. Perera responded by asking if the POMFA order in this case meets the objective of “reinforcing public confidence in those institutions, or does that really erode public confidence because it will generate more speculation without a constructive end.”
This is especially if “POFMA directives are going to be issued every time a false figure is given for compensation from senior management of sovereign wealth funds … but the actual figure is not given,” he added.
READ: POFMA: 4 Correction Instructions Issued on Ho Ching Temasek Holdings Salary Claims
Indranee said the court is an “independent court” that will decide on the issue of the public interest.
“So at the end of the day, when it comes to the specific issue of public trust, the court will decide on that,” he said.
“With respect to the other issues, those really don’t belong in this particular question. Public confidence will be maintained because the public will know that when the court decides on this issue, whether or not the test under POFMA was met.”
