This is a capable summary of a piece of Singaporean legislation with which you are already familiar, so no substantial effort was put into new learning. There's no solidity to the argument that this legislation is a "careful balance" of any kind. Government prohibition of "false information" is a violation of any meaningful principle of freedom of expression. Singapore's government has a long history of using defamation law against unfavorable press coverage, and this is merely another example of the same form of unconcealed despotism.

If you are interested in free expression issues, why don't we refocus the next draft in a substantive area about which you feel free no to parrot some government's self-serving bullshit? There are plenty of ways of exploring your interests that would generate more new learning and would not amount to anticipatory obedience or self-censorship.

Why aren't these links anchored to the relevant text in the usual way? We are writing on and for the Web, so why not make it easy for the reader?

‘POFMA’ and the Internet Society in Singapore

-- By XuanyiLee - 09 Nov 2024

Despite its economic success, Singapore’s issues with media freedom highlight a glaring problem with the island-nation’s rapid development. In 2024, Singapore ranked 126th out of 180 nations in Reporters without Borders (RSF) Press Freedom Index. One legal tool instrumental to this ranking is the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA).

History of POFMA

The concept of POFMA was first discussed in Singapore’s Parliament in 2017. Minister of Law K Shanmugan stated that misinformation was an issue in Singapore for which current laws offered “limited remedies”. Shanmugan cited cases where misinformation had interfered with political and international affairs, stating that fake news must be assumed to be an “offensive weapon by foreign agencies and foreign governments” with the objective of getting “into the public mind, to destabilise the public, to psychologically weaken them”.

In 2019, POFMA was first tabled in Parliament. The stated objective of the Act was “to prevent the electronic communication in Singapore of false statements of fact, to suppress support for and counteract the effects of such communication, to safeguard against the use of online accounts for such communication and for information manipulation, to enable measures to be taken to enhance transparency of online political advertisements, and for related matters”.

Notably, the ruling People’s Action Party held a supermajority in Parliament. As such, following a straightforward voting process, POFMA passed with 72 to 8 votes – all 8 opposition Members of Parliament voted against the Act.

Substance of POFMA

The primary tool of POFMA is the ability for online statements to be issued with “directions”. POFMA is operated by an agency within the Infocomm Media Development Authority in Singapore, which is a statutory board established under the Singapore Ministry of Digital Development and Information.

A “correction direction” does not necessarily require an online statement to be removed, instead the direction will state the necessary adjustment that must be made to ‘correct’ the false statement. However, in more “serious” cases, a “stop communication” or “disabling” direction may be issued instead. Stop communication directions instruct the statement-maker to remove access to the false statement within a specified time. A disabling direction disables access to an entire online site in Singapore. Supposedly, directions can only be issued if “a false statement of fact has been or is being communicated in Singapore through the Internet; and it is in the public interest to issue the direction”. Non-compliance with POFMA directions result in fines and/or jail time for offenders.

POFMA orders are subject to judicial review if offenders wish to appeal. In Online Citizen, the Singapore Court of Appeal established a five-step framework to determine if a POFMA correction direction should be set aside in a judicial review process. The Online Citizen Pte Ltd v Attorney-General [2021] SGCA 96. Firstly, the reviewing court must identify the false statement targeted by the direction. Secondly, the court must determine if the POFMA-wielding minister’s interpretation of the statement is reasonably objective. Thirdly, the court must determine if the statement is indeed a “statement of fact”, and not merely an opinion. Fourthly, the court must determine if the statement is indeed “false”. Finally, the court must consider if the statement has been or is being communicated in Singapore. The Court also established that the burden of proof lies with the POFMA offender – adding another hurdle to avoiding liability under POFMA. Notably, the POFMA appeal process remains financially and administratively burdensome.

Assessing the effects of POFMA

POFMA has been deployed against rival political parties such as the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and small, independent alternative media outlets such as Jom Media. As often seen in these cases, the resource imbalance between the POFMA user and POFMA offender is massive. As such, a POFMA direction can be seen as a crushing blow to the operability and credibility of alternative media sources or opposition political parties.

One central concern about POFMA is the Act’s likely effect in stifling legitimate political discourse. The substantive legal language in POFMA and POFMA’s appeal process is arguably vague and relatively broad. For instance, what is seen to be in the “public interest” ranges from matters of public health, national security, and the maintenance of public confidence in governmental institutions. It is thus likely that media actors in Singapore will develop a culture of self-censorship in order to play the safe side in complying with POFMA, given the onerous nature of being issued with POFMA directions. The threat of POFMA alone is likely to act as a deterrent in publishing alternative, diverse viewpoints on a range of public issues in Singapore, contributing to the development of a one-track political discourse culture.

Conclusion

Singapore’s implementation of POFMA highlights a difficult balancing act between the safeguarding against misinformation and preservation of a fundamental freedom of expression. The broad powers wielded by the government in POFMA along with the difficulty of accessing judicial oversight poses serious questions to media freedom in Singapore. The international condemnation and scrutiny surrounding POFMA underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in checking governmental power. The rise of POFMA raises questions around the direction of Singapore’s meteoric development in the digital information age – as the country matures into a true first-world nation, it must address how much it believes in democratic principles and media freedom.

Sources cited:

https://rsf.org/en/country/singapore

https://web.archive.org/web/20180927125021/https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/government--seriously-considering--how-to-deal-with-fake-news-sh-8712436

https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/POFMA2019?TransactionDate=20191001235959

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/falsehoods-freedom-speech-and-burden-proof-key-findings-apex-courts-landmark-pofma-judgment-2230541