The court emphasized that serious questions regarding the extra-territorial application of foreign law and the principles of comity of nations warrant further consideration, particularly concerning freedom of speech and access to justice.

Introduction

[1] There are two (2) related appeals before us which are as follows:

i. Civil Appeal No W-01(IM)-390-07/2021 ("Appeal 390"); and

ii. Civil Appeal No W-01(IM)-393-07/2021 ("Appeal 393")

Appeal 390 is the appellant's appeal against the decision of the High Court in Kuala Lumpur allowing the Attorney General Malaysia's striking out application of the appellant's Originating Summons No WA-24-51-10/2020 dated 2 October 2020 ('OS 51') against K Shanmugam, Minister of Home Affairs, Singapore.

The appellant's appeal in 393 is against the decision of the High Court in Kuala Lumpur allowing the respondents' striking out application of the appellant's Originating Summons No WA-24-46-09/2020 dated 18 September 2020 ('OS 46') against the Government of Malaysia ('GOM'). Both the striking out applications were heard together (collectively herein as "the Appeals").

[2] This is our unanimous decision. After considering counsel's full submission, both oral and written, we allowed both the appeals.

[3] We provide our reasons herein below.

Background Facts

[4] On 16 January 2020, the appellant published a press statement on their website https://www.lawyersforliberty.org/2020/16/18875 in which they alleged that the method of execution of the death penalty in Singapore was unlawful and brutal ('the 16th Article").

[5] The Government of Singapore directed the issuance of a Correction Direction dated 22 January 2020 ("the Correction Direction") to the appellant under s 11 of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 ('POFMA'), and notified the appellant that:

(i) the 16th Article contained false statements of fact;

(ii) Singapore's Minister of Home Affairs ('defendant'), in exercise of his statutory powers under POFMA, directed the plaintiff/appellant to insert a correction notice ('correction notice') not later than 23 January 2020 and failure to comply with the Correction Direction, without reasonable excuse, would amount to an offence under s 15 of the POFMA;

(iii) the plaintiff could apply to the defendant to vary or cancel the Correction Direction; and

(iv) in the event the application for variation or cancellation was refused, the plaintiff could appeal to the High Court of Singapore to set aside the Correction Direction.

[6] However, the plaintiff did not comply with the Correction Direction and, instead proceeded to file the two applications in the High Court, by way of Originating Summonses (OS), namely OS 46 and OS 51.

[7] In OS 46 against GOM, the plaintiff sought the following reliefs:

(i) a declaration that the appellant has the rights to express their opinion in Malaysia with regard to any matters, pursuant to art 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution;

(ii) a declaration that the appellant's rights could not be impaired by a law in Singapore, namely the POFMA, which purports to extend beyond Singapore, that is assuming extra-territorial jurisdiction; and;

(iii) a declaration that the appellant could not be subjected to any process within Malaysia in furtherance of the Singapore law.

[8] In OS 51, against the Singapore Home Affairs Minister, the appellant sought the following reliefs:

(a) a declaration that the direction issued by the defendant could not be enforced against the appellant in Malaysia;

(b) a declaration that the defendant, or anyone acting under his authority, could not take any action to enforce any provision of the POFMA against the appellant within Malaysia; and

(c) an injunction to restrain the defendant, his servant or agents or anyone acting