Parliamentary passage of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act

This page covers the introduction, debate and passage of the Bill. For the pre-legislative inquiry, see Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods. For the Act's provisions and use, see Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019.

The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill (Bill No. 10 of 2019) was introduced in the Parliament of Singapore on 1 April 2019 and debated over two sitting days, 7 and 8 May 2019. The House divided twice on 8 May: once on the Second Reading, which passed 74 votes to 9 with 1 abstention, and again on the Third Reading following the Committee stage, which passed 72 votes to 9 with 3 abstentions. Between the two divisions, the House sat as a Committee of the whole House and rejected a set of amendments moved by three Nominated Members of Parliament. The Bill became the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (Act 18 of 2019) on presidential assent on 3 June 2019 and came into force on 2 October 2019.

Legislative timeline

Date	Stage
1 April 2019	First reading. The Bill was introduced by Edwin Tong, Senior Minister of State for Law.
7 May 2019	Second reading moved and debate opened by K. Shanmugam, Minister for Law and Home Affairs, continuing through the day.
8 May 2019	Debate resumed and continued into the afternoon and evening.
8 May 2019	Second Reading division: Bill read a second time, 74 Ayes, 9 Noes, 1 Abstention.
8 May 2019	Committee of the whole House: clause-by-clause consideration; amendments moved by Nominated Members Anthea Ong, Irene Quay Siew Ching and Walter Theseira all negatived.
8 May 2019	Third Reading division: Bill read a third time and passed, 72 Ayes, 9 Noes, 3 Abstentions.
3 June 2019	Assented to by President Halimah Yacob (Act 18 of 2019).
2 October 2019	Commenced by notification in the Gazette; the POFMA Office was established within the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA).

Second Reading debate

The two-day debate on 7 and 8 May 2019 drew speeches from three Government office-holders moving different parts of the Bill, backbenchers from both sides, three Nominated Members of Parliament, and all nine Workers' Party Members present.

The Government's opening case

Moving the second reading, Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam framed the Bill against Singapore's existing legislation, arguing at length that the powers being proposed were narrower in scope than powers the Government already held under the Broadcasting Act, the Telecommunications Act and related laws, while providing for direct appeal to the High Court rather than judicial review alone. He set out the Bill's background in the Select Committee process, situated the problem within a broader account of declining institutional trust internationally, and worked through examples of disinformation from the UK's EU referendum, the 2016 US presidential election, Germany, Sweden, France, Indonesia and Sri Lanka to argue that online falsehoods posed a comparable threat to Singapore given its diversity and open information environment. He addressed several objections directly, including that the Bill created no new offence (arguing the equivalent already existed under the Telecommunications Act, later folded into the Miscellaneous Offences Act), that judicial review remained available, and that the non-exhaustive "public interest" definition in clause 4 was necessary because a closed list would let bad actors work around it.

Senior Minister of State for Law Edwin Tong followed with the Bill's specific mechanisms, describing the correction-based approach (Targeted Corrections under clauses 11 and 21; General Corrections under clause 23) as designed around Select Committee findings that corrections work best when paired with an explanation and prior warning, and setting out the disabling and stop-communication powers under clauses 12 and 22 as reserved for cases where corrections alone would not suffice. He stated that the Bill's toolkit was designed to remedy the impact of falsehoods rather than to punish, and that receiving a Direction did not by itself imply wrongdoing.

Communications and Information Minister S. Iswaran, closing the debate on the Government's side before the Third Reading, set out the Bill's approach to the technology sector: correction directions as the primary lever, disabling and stop-communication directions reserved for serious harm, and a new POFMA Office to be established within IMDA as the Competent Authority. He rejected proposals to place primary responsibility for monitoring falsehoods on platforms themselves, arguing this would let companies interpret Government objectives to their own advantage.

The Workers' Party's case

All nine Workers' Party Members present spoke against the Bill. Their core objection, put first by party leader Pritam Singh, was that the Bill vested the initial decision on whether a statement was false and against the public interest in individual government ministers, rather than the courts, and that the courts' role under the Bill was confined to an appeal on narrow statutory grounds rather than a first-instance hearing on the merits. Singh proposed that the courts, not ministers, act as first arbiter, drawing on the interim-order mechanism under the companion Protection from Harassment (Amendment) Bill passed the previous day, and argued that judicial capacity for urgent applications could be built up if resourced.

Chairman Low Thia Khiang argued that the Bill's powers, while procedurally different from existing law, were in substance no less broad because they were newly targeted at individual social media statements rather than only at companies and platforms, and characterised the sequence of ministerial direction followed by appeal as "execute first, appeal later". Party chair Sylvia Lim set out in detail why she considered the statutory grounds of appeal under clauses 17(5) and 29(5) narrower than ordinary judicial review, and that judicial review itself was a demanding and separate legal proceeding. Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap argued that clauses 2 and 4(f) created a structural conflict of interest for ministers ruling on statements that touched their own portfolios or the Government's standing. Dennis Tan Lip Fong, Chen Show Mao and Assoc. Prof. Daniel Goh Pei Siong raised concerns respectively about the breadth of the "misleading" limb in the definition of falsehood, the scope of clause 4(f) on diminished public confidence in the Government, and the case for the courts rather than the Executive as first arbiter of contested facts. Leon Perera and Png Eng Huat focused on the risk of a chilling effect on political and investigative speech and, in Png's case, on the Bill's application during election periods.

Nominated Members' position

The three Nominated Members of Parliament who tabled amendments — Anthea Ong, Irene Quay Siew Ching and Walter Theseira — stated that they supported the Bill's legislative intent but sought to scope and check the exercise of ministerial power. Ong and Theseira proposed a new "Principles of Act" clause setting out in the primary legislation that the Bill targets material falsehoods and not opinions, comments, critiques, satire, parody, generalisations or statements of experience, and that the least restrictive available tool should be used first. They also proposed requiring each Direction to be publicly justified with evidence, and an "Independent Council Against Online Falsehoods", appointed by a Parliamentary Select Committee rather than a Minister, with a review and public-education role rather than a decision-making one. Irene Quay additionally raised concerns about the breadth of the "public interest" and "misleading" definitions and asked that the Whip be lifted for the vote. Theseira presented an analysis of 170 past Government actions against online misinformation between 2015 and 2019, arguing that a minority of cases involved language that blurred a factual dispute with a disagreement over the conclusions drawn from undisputed facts.

Government and backbench support

Backbenchers who spoke in support of the Bill included Christopher de Souza, Sun Xueling, Seah Kian Peng, Cedric Foo Chee Keng, Rahayu Mahzam, Vikram Nair, Murali Pillai, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Melvin Yong Yik Chye, Alex Yam, Saktiandi Supaat, Gan Thiam Poh, Joan Pereira, Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar, Zaqy Mohamad, Sim Ann, Mohamed Irshad, Henry Kwek and Darryl David, among others. Their speeches argued variously that the correction-based model preserved rather than restricted public discourse, that speed of response was essential given the Select Committee's finding that falsehoods must be countered "in a matter of hours", and that ministerial accountability through Parliament and the ballot box supplemented rather than substituted for judicial oversight. Education Minister Ong Ye Kung addressed concerns raised by 124 signatory academics directly, arguing that empirically-based research could not fail to clear the Bill's first threshold — a false statement of fact — since using real, even incomplete or later-superseded, data was not itself falsification. Dr Chia Shi-Lu and Mr Louis Ng raised, respectively, the application of the Bill to medical misinformation and the case for complementary freedom-of-information measures.

Committee stage

Following the Second Reading division, the House resolved into a Committee of the whole House. Anthea Ong, on behalf of herself, Irene Quay Siew Ching and Walter Theseira, moved amendments to clauses 13 and 25 requiring Directions to identify supporting evidence and state public interest objects in greater detail; to clauses 17, 29, 35 and 44 requiring appeals to be adjudicated "without delay"; and two new clauses, "Principles of Act" and an "Independent Council Against Online Falsehoods". Each amendment was put to a voice vote and negatived; the Workers' Party abstained on all of them, and the three Nominated Members had their dissent formally recorded on each. The Bill was reported from Committee without amendment.

Divisions

Second Reading, 8 May 2019

The Second Reading was carried 74 votes to 9, with 1 abstention. The published Hansard record of this division does not give a name-by-name breakdown in the material reviewed for this page; only the aggregate figures are confirmed.

Third Reading, 8 May 2019

Following the Committee stage, the Third Reading — the final vote on passage of the Bill — was carried 72 votes to 9, with 3 abstentions, on a division called by the Workers' Party. All nine Noes were cast by Workers' Party members: six elected Members of Parliament (Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim, Chen Show Mao, Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap and Pritam Singh, all Aljunied GRC, and Png Eng Huat, Hougang SMC) and three Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (Dennis Tan Lip Fong, Leon Perera and Daniel Goh Pei Siong). The three abstentions were the Nominated Members of Parliament who had moved the negatived committee-stage amendments: Anthea Ong, Irene Quay Siew Ching and Walter Theseira.

Third Reading division on the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill, 8 May 2019

Ayes (72)	Noes (9)	Abstentions (3)
Speaker/Deputy Speaker Alex Yam Amrin Amin Amy Khor Lean Suan Ang Hin Kee Ang Wei Neng Arasu Duraisamy Cedric Foo Chee Keng Chan Chun Sing Chee Hong Tat Cheng Li Hui Cheryl Chan Wei Ling Chia Shi-Lu Chong Kee Hiong Christopher de Souza Darryl David Denise Phua Lay Peng Desmond Choo Edwin Tong Chun Fai Gan Kim Yong Gan Thiam Poh Goh Chok Tong Heng Chee How Indranee Rajah Intan Azura Mokhtar Janil Puthucheary Joan Pereira Josephine Teo K. Shanmugam Khaw Boon Wan Kwek Hian Chuan Henry Lam Pin Min Lawrence Wong Lee Bee Wah Lee Hsien Loong Lily Neo Lim Biow Chuan Lim Hng Kiang Lim Sun Sun Lim Swee Say Lim Wee Kiak Louis Ng Kok Kwang Low Yen Ling Masagos Zulkifli Melvin Yong Yik Chye Mohamad Maliki bin Osman Mohamed Irshad Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim Murali Pillai Ng Chee Meng Ng Eng Hen Ong Teng Koon Ong Ye Kung Patrick Tay Teck Guan Rahayu Mahzam S. Iswaran Saktiandi Supaat Seah Kian Peng Sim Ann Sitoh Yih Pin Sun Xueling Tan Wu Meng Teo Chee Hean Teo Ser Luck Tharman Shanmugaratnam Tin Pei Ling Vikram Nair Vivian Balakrishnan Yaacob Ibrahim Yee Chia Hsing Zainal Sapari Zaqy Mohamad	Chen Show Mao Daniel Goh Pei Siong Low Thia Khiang Png Eng Huat Dennis Tan Lip Fong Muhamad Faisal bin Abdul Manap Sylvia Lim Leon Perera Pritam Singh	Anthea Ong Irene Quay Siew Ching Walter Theseira

Minister's round-up

Closing the debate before the Second Reading division, Minister Shanmugam responded to points raised across both days, including on the "misleading" limb of the falsehood definition, the scope of clause 4(f), the appeals process and cost, and comparisons drawn by Workers' Party Members to the Internal Security Act and to the 2016 Administration of Justice (Protection) Act debate. He reiterated that Directions were corrections or takedowns rather than criminal punishments, that criminal liability required proof of a third element — knowledge that a statement was both false and harmful — and that the Bill's powers were, in his submission, narrower than the Government's existing powers under the Broadcasting Act and Telecommunications Act. Pritam Singh, in reply, maintained the Workers' Party's position that the Bill's powers were "sharpened" rather than narrowed, citing a Select Committee submission by Assoc. Prof. Goh Yihan on gaps in existing legislation's application to online falsehoods specifically.

See also

• Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019
• Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods
• POFMA directions
• POFMA appeals