Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019

Background and Introduction to POFMA

The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) was enacted in Singapore in October 2019, positioning itself as one of the most stringent laws globally to address misinformation.

POFMA grants government ministers sweeping powers to respond to online content deemed to be “falsehoods” that may influence public perception, social harmony, or national security.

Under POFMA, ministers can issue correction, removal, or disabling directions to individuals, organisations, and online platforms, even when those platforms are hosted overseas.

The law was introduced as part of Singapore's effort to combat the rapid spread of misinformation on social media and to prevent potential threats to national stability, following the recommendations of a Select Committee on Online Falsehoods.

The Ministry of Law, which spearheaded the legislation, argued that POFMA is necessary to protect the public against the potential harm of falsehoods, such as undermining trust in institutions, affecting electoral outcomes, or spreading public panic.

POFMA provides for various forms of government response, including correction directions (adding a correction label to content), take-down orders, and “general correction directions” aimed at platforms like Facebook or Twitter, requiring them to alert all users who might have been exposed to a particular piece of false information.

However, since its introduction, POFMA has drawn considerable criticism both domestically and internationally, with concerns about its impact on free speech, the centralised power it grants to government officials, and its potential use as a political tool.

Key Provisions of POFMA

The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) grants significant powers to government ministers, enabling them to address content deemed false or harmful. Key provisions include:

1. Issuance of Correction Directions and : Government ministers may instruct individuals or platforms to append correction notices to content identified as false, including a link to the government’s clarification.
2. Content Removal or Disablement: Ministers can mandate the removal or disablement of content if it is assessed as potentially harmful to public interest.
3. General Correction Directions: For widely shared falsehoods, platforms can be required to display correction notices to all Singapore-based users, irrespective of their interaction with the content.
4. Penalties for Non-Compliance: Individuals face fines of up to S$20,000 and imprisonment of up to one year, while companies may incur fines up to S$500,000.

Ministers have the authority to determine whether a statement qualifies as a falsehood and can issue correction or removal directions without prior judicial approval. Although affected parties can appeal in court, they must first comply with the directive and manage the potentially high legal costs of the appeal process.

Section 15: Non-Compliance as an Offence

Under Section 15, non-compliance with a Part 3 Direction constitutes an offence. Key details include:

1. Penalties for Individuals and Companies:
   • Individuals: A fine not exceeding S$20,000 or imprisonment for up to 12 months, or both.
   • Companies: A fine not exceeding S$500,000.
2. Defences Not Permissible: It is not a valid defence to argue that legal, contractual, or professional obligations prevented compliance, nor that an application to vary or cancel the direction was filed.
3. Immunity for Good Faith Compliance: No civil or criminal liability is incurred for actions taken in reasonable care and good faith to comply with or execute a Part 3 Direction.

Section 7: Communication of False Statements of Fact

Section 7 addresses the communication of false statements of fact, highlighting:

1. Prohibition: Individuals must not communicate a statement, knowing or having reason to believe it is false and likely to:
   • Jeopardise Singapore’s security, public health, safety, or finances.
   • Affect public tranquillity or relations with other countries.
   • Influence elections, incite enmity, or erode public confidence in government entities.
2. Penalties:
   • Individuals: A fine up to S$50,000 or imprisonment up to five years, or both.
   • Companies: A fine up to S$500,000.
3. Use of Inauthentic Accounts or Bots: Stricter penalties apply if inauthentic online accounts or bots are used to accelerate the dissemination of falsehoods:
   • Individuals: A fine up to S$100,000 or imprisonment up to 10 years, or both.
   • Companies: A fine up to S$1 million.

Criticism and Concerns

1. Concerns Over Free Speech and Self-Censorship

One of the most widely voiced concerns about POFMA is its potential to infringe upon free speech. Critics argue that the law enables the government to control public discourse and restrict dissenting viewpoints.

By giving ministers the authority to determine what constitutes “falsehoods” without judicial oversight, POFMA centralises the power to police speech within the executive branch. Many international human rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders, have condemned the law, arguing that it sets a dangerous precedent for freedom of expression in Singapore.

Local activists and opposition figures have also voiced concerns that POFMA creates a climate of self-censorship. With the knowledge that critical statements could be targeted by a correction directive, individuals and news outlets may hesitate to express dissenting opinions or report on controversial issues.

The law has also been used on multiple occasions to address social media posts by civil society groups, opposition politicians, and activists, raising questions about its use in silencing criticism under the guise of protecting the public from misinformation.

2. Judicial Oversight and the Burden of Appeals

POFMA’s appeal process places the burden of proof and legal costs on individuals or organisations issued with correction directions. This arrangement has raised concerns that challenging POFMA directives is financially daunting, especially for individuals or smaller entities that lack the resources to mount a legal appeal.

Although parties can seek judicial review of a POFMA directive, the law requires them to comply with the directive first, which may diminish the impact of any eventual court ruling in their favour.

The absence of independent judicial oversight at the initial stage also raises questions about checks and balances. By concentrating decision-making authority within the executive, the law has been criticised for undermining the role of the judiciary in providing a neutral assessment of alleged falsehoods.

Some experts argue that this arrangement creates an imbalance, as it enables ministers to act as both the complainant and adjudicator in cases involving misinformation.

3. Selective Application and Allegations of Political Bias

One of the more controversial aspects of POFMA is the perception that it may be selectively applied, especially against political opposition and activists.

Since its implementation, POFMA has been used against opposition politicians, critical news portals, and advocacy groups. The government, via alternate authorities, has issued correction directions against opposition figures during the general election, leading to claims that the law is being used as a tool for political advantage.

The government maintains that POFMA is applied objectively and solely in cases where false statements could harm public interest. However, critics point out that correction orders are disproportionately directed at opposition parties and government critics, rather than at pro-government entities or statements, even when these are disputed.

4. Impact on Media and Independent Journalism

Singapore’s tightly regulated media environment has long been a topic of international scrutiny, and POFMA has intensified concerns about press freedom.

Independent news portals and journalists who report critically on government actions have faced POFMA orders, which can damage their credibility by labelling their reporting as false.

Some observers argue that POFMA restricts investigative journalism, especially when coverage involves government-related topics that are contentious or sensitive.

Moreover, the law places added strain on smaller, independent media outlets that lack the resources to consistently fact-check every detail or challenge correction directives in court.

In contrast, the government appears lenient with mainstream media regarding errors in their reporting, often allowing them to issue corrections without a formal correction direction.

POFMA’s broad definitions and expansive powers risk pushing critical journalism to the margins, potentially depriving the public of alternative viewpoints and reducing the diversity of information available to Singaporean citizens.