Activist Kokila Annamalai goes on trial in Singapore's first prosecution for defying POFMA order活动人士科基拉·安纳马拉伊因违反《防止网络虚假信息和网络操纵法》（POFMA）规定而受审，这是新加坡首例此类案件。
After she received the correction direction, Kokila Annamalai put up an article titled, "I Defy: Why I am not complying with my POFMA Correction Direction".
After she received the correction direction, Kokila Annamalai put up an article titled, "I Defy: Why I am not complying with my POFMA Correction Direction".
Kokila Annamalai arriving at the State Courts on Oct 7, 2026. (Photo: CNA/Raydza Rahman)
This audio is generated by an AI tool.
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.
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.
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.
Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox
Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories
Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app
在收到纠正指示后，Kokila Annamalai 发表了一篇题为“我违抗：为什么我不遵守我的 POFMA 纠正指示”的文章。
2026年10月7日，Kokila Annamalai抵达州法院。（图片：CNA/Raydza Rahman）
这段音频由人工智能工具生成。
新加坡：活动人士 Kokila Annamalai 于周三（10 月 7 日）受审，罪名是未能遵守根据《防止网络虚假信息和操纵法》（POFMA）向她发出的纠正指令。
这与她于 2024 年 10 月在社交媒体上发布的关于一名被判死刑的毒贩的帖子有关。
这是自 2019 年《防止网络虚假信息和网络操纵法》(POFMA) 生效以来，首例此类审判。
POFMA办公室指出，这些帖子中存在两项不实陈述。第一项是政府“任意安排和中止死刑，而不顾正当的法律程序”。
第二，国家不承担证明被告人犯有贩毒罪的法律责任。
据称，在时任内政和法律部长K Shanmugam的指示下，POFMA办公室向Annamalai发出纠正指示后，Annamalai发帖称她无视了该纠正指示。
这名38岁的新加坡女子，全名是安娜玛莱·科基拉·帕尔瓦蒂，因参与宣传在新加坡废除死刑的集会，面临违反《公共秩序法》的另一项指控。
在审理与《防止网络虚假信息和网络操纵法案》(POFMA) 相关的指控期间，该指控被搁置或暂缓处理。
副检察官Timotheus Koh和Stephanie Koh在开庭陈述中告诉法庭，这是一起“蓄意不服从的简单案件”。
他们表示，法律框架允许个人对纠正指令的发布提出质疑，但安纳马拉伊并没有按照允许的方法提出质疑。
首先可以向部长提出申诉，如果申诉失败，则可以向高等法院提出申诉。
检方表示，发布更正声明的目的是为了让公众能够同时查阅原文和政府声明，以便形成自己的结论。
Koh女士表示，Annamalai明知改正方向和可能面临的挑战，却选择无视它们。
她后来发表了一篇文章，题为《我反抗：我为什么不遵守我的 POFMA 纠正指令》，文中阐述了她违抗的理由。
副标题是：“我说过的话就是我说过的话。”
Koh女士还表示，不应允许Annamalai利用目前的诉讼程序对纠正指令发起“后门挑战”。
她补充说，本次听证会也不是听取纠正指示内容的场合。
Koh女士指出：“收到纠正指示的人必须先遵守指示，然后通过正当渠道提出质疑，而不是反过来。”
“被告对此心知肚明。”
她敦促法庭将诉讼程序限制在指控的要素范围内，并驳回“被告试图引入无关紧要的问题”的任何企图。
“她想利用这场刑事审判来为自己做宣传，我们敦促法庭驳回她的请求，”许女士补充道。
这时，安纳马拉伊微笑着看向旁听席，那里坐满了支持者。
其中包括演员林继秀和梁瑞琳，他们与安纳马拉伊一起因参与在国家法院举行的集会而被控违反公共秩序法。
Annamalai 的辩护律师是 Too Xing Ji 和 Tham Lijing。
Tham 先生要求发言，Koh 先生反对，称辩方尚未出庭。
然而，首席地方法官杜汉利允许辩方发言。
谭先生随后表示，《防止网络虚假信息和网络操纵法》（POFMA）并非旨在适用于像被告这样的人。
“她来自金文泰，就读于布莱克摩尔路的卫理公会女子学校（MGS），并以优异的成绩毕业于新加坡国立大学（NUS）。毕业后，她加入了AWARE（妇女援助组织），帮助那些遭受虐待的妇女，”谭先生说道。
法官杜赫插话，让他直奔主题。
“重点是，”谭先生继续说道，“她遇到了一个被判死刑的男人……他就是Facebook帖子和X帖子的主角……他是一名被定罪的毒贩。”
法官再次插话，要求他不要“说太多细节”。
“这项纠正指令本身就无效，”谭先生说。
他补充说，辩方有三点理由。首先，《防止网络虚假信息和网络操纵法》（POFMA）不适用于事实，也不适用于意见。
其次，Annamalai 的帖子并没有发表或包含有争议的主题言论。
第三，更正通知长达 330 个字，“超出了 POFMA 授予的权力”。
“我们想说的是——《防止网络虚假信息和网络操纵法》（POFMA）第11条赋予政府答辩权，即澄清事实的机会。第11条并未授权政府将一篇330字的文章发布到个人的网络空间。”
谭先生认为，辩方的立场得到了议会意图的证实。
他说：“在《防止网络虚假信息和网络操纵法案》（POFMA）的辩论期间，议会已经认识到该法案不会出现类似这样的声明。”
他说，辩方将请求法庭认定该更正指令无效。如果该指令无效，那么指控必然不成立。
随后，控方传唤了第一位证人，即《防止网络虚假信息和网络操纵法》办公室的集群主管杨雪莹女士。
Koh 先生询问她纠正指令是如何发出的，Yeo 女士作证说，有三封电子邮件被发送给了 Annamalai。
她说，收到更正指示的人有时可能会错过办公室发送的电子邮件，或者可能没有阅读这些电子邮件，因此发送了多封提醒邮件。
“我们希望给予收件人充足的通知时间和机会来遵守规定，”她说。
她还表示，安纳马拉伊没有在最后期限前履行承诺，至今也没有。
审判仍在继续。
周三早些时候，法院批准了安纳马拉伊本月晚些时候前往印度钦奈的请求。
保释条件包括除了原有的 5,000 新元保释金外，还需要再缴纳 5,000 新元（3,910 美元）保释金。
如果安纳马拉伊被判无正当理由不遵守矫正指令，可被判处最高 12 个月监禁或最高 20,000 新元罚款，或两者并罚。
订阅我们的邮件，即可获取精选热点新闻和引人深思的文章。
订阅通知，第一时间获取突发新闻和精彩报道。
加入我们的频道，即可在您常用的聊天应用上获取当日热门文章。