Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian [2021] SGHC 66 In a response to questions posed during the passage of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill, Minister for Law Mr K Shanmugam, made the following observations:24 Ms Irene Quay asked about the relationship of this Bill with the Defamation Act and the Internal Security Act. The Defamation Act deals in the private law sphere, with damage to reputation. For example, if someone says you are corrupt, then if it is not true, you can sue to clear your name. And many people will want to. The Internal Security Act (“ISA”) deals with threats to national security. This Bill deals with falsehoods, to mitigate the impact and deter those who deliberately peddle in falsehoods, with [a] specific framework that is different from ISA. 52 I note in addition that there is not a single provision of the POFMA which expressly deals with defamation. Parliament also did not, even in light of the POFMA, amend any provisions in the Defamation Act (Cap 75, 2014 Rev Ed) or the provisions providing for criminal defamation at ss 499 to 502 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed). Given such absence of any express reference to defamation, or even to anything that could be construed as having any such effect, it would be far too much for the Court to dramatically alter the law of defamation in the manner sought by the plaintiff. 53 In any event, I note that the instant suit was commenced on 20 November 2018, while the POFMA was only passed on 8 May 2019. It is fairly settled that legislation does not generally apply to actions which are pending at the time the legislation comes into force unless the language of the legislation compels the conclusion that Parliament intended that it should: Wilson and others v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2004] 1 AC 816 at [198] and 24 Singapore Parliamentary Debates. Official Report (8 May 2019) vol 94, 8.01pm, per Minister for Law Mr K Shanmugam. 28