Advertisement

'Not appropriate' to answer parliamentary query on POFMA orders issued over Ho Ching's salary: Indranee Rajah

Second Minister for Finance and Education Indranee Rajah. (SCREENCAP: Parliament)
Second Minister for Finance and Education Indranee Rajah. (SCREENCAP: Parliament)

SINGAPORE — It is “not appropriate” to answer a parliamentary question on how allegedly false statements made over the salary of Temasek Holdings’ chief executive harms the public interest as the matter is before the court, said Second Minister for Finance Indranee Rajah in Parliament on Tuesday (5 May).

Rajah was responding to Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Leon Perera’s question on how the subject statement regarding the pay of Temasek CEO Ho Ching harms the public interest as defined in section 4 of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulations Act (POFMA). Perera was referring to the four POFMA directives issued last month over the allegedly false statements.

On 19 April, POFMA was invoked against four parties: HardwareZone user “darksiedluv”; The Temasek Review's Facebook page; The Online Citizen's (TOC) Facebook page and website; and local lawyer and opposition politician Lim Tean.

Four correction directions were issued relating to the allegedly false statements made by the quartet over Ho’s remuneration. The statements had speculated that Ho, who is the wife of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and also Temasek’s executive director, earns about $100 million annually.

In responding to Perera’s query, Rajah alluded to TOC’s ongoing application to the High Court for a judicial review of the POFMA directives. She told the House, “One of the issues that TOC has raised before the court relates to the public interest grounds under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulations Act, or POFMA, as this issue is now before the court. Given the specific circumstances of this case, it is not appropriate to answer this question.”

Temasek denies Ho Ching salary claims

On the same day that the POFMA directives were announced, Temasek issued a rare statement saying, “This claim is false.”

“Furthermore, Ho Ching’s annual compensation is neither the highest within Temasek, nor is she among the top five highest paid executives in Temasek,” the state investment firm said.

Additionally on Factually, the government said that it does not set the remuneration of staff in Temasek.

“This is the responsibility of its board and management. The government holds the board responsible for the long-term performance of its investments, net of expenses.”

POFMA, a controversial fake news law, was first invoked on 25 November, when a correction notice was issued to opposition party member Brad Bowyer, regarding his Facebook post on investments by Temasek Holdings. Since then, it has been invoked on multiple occasions.

A question of public trust?

Responding to Rajah’s statement to the House, Perera asked if the government’s approach on the matter might actually end up undermining public trust.

“So, if we take the approach that, you know, POFMA directives are going to be issued, every time a false figure is given for compensation on the top management of sovereign wealth funds, for the CEO Temasek Holdings, and those POFMA directives are issued, but the real figure is not given - does that really meet the objective of reinforcing public trust in those institutions, or does that actually, potentially erode public trust, because it would breed more speculation to no constructive end.”

Rajah, who spoke on behalf of Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat, said the key issue, which has been put in play by TOC’s application for judicial review, was whether there is a question of public interest.

“And that is before the court, and the court is an independent tribunal that will make that decision. So at the end of the day, in so far as the specific question of public trust is involved, the court will decide on that. With respect to the other matters, those don't really pertain to this particular question,” said Rajah.

“The public trust will be upheld because the public will know that when the court decides in this issue, whether or not the test under POFMA was met.”

Stay in the know on-the-go: Join Yahoo Singapore's Telegram channel at http://t.me/YahooSingapore