Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act

On 3 April 2017, Minister of Law and Home Affairs K Shanmugam called for a review of existing laws to combat fake news. He cited the websites The Real Singapore which published an article claiming that a commotion between Thaipusam participants and the police was sparked by complaints from a Filipino family, the States Times Review which mocked former President S. R. Nathan with an article claiming near-zero turnout for his funeral, and All Singapore Stuff which reported eye-witness account of a collapsed HDB roof at Punggol Waterway Terraces which fooled the police and civil defence to investigate.[3] The Minister claimed that fake news, when not debunked, can quickly cause harm to Singaporeans, panic to public, waste emergency resources, and damage reputations of businesses and people. He also claimed that nasty people seek to profit from fake news and that foreign agencies and foreign governments seek to destabilise the government through fake news.[3]

On 10 January 2018, 80 MPs present voted unanimously in Parliament to appoint a Select Committee of eight PAP MPs, one opposition MP and one NMP to study and report on the problem of deliberate online falsehoods and recommend strategies to deal with them.[4] The Select Committee convened public hearings from 14 March to 29 March 2018, lasting eight days in total, where 79 individuals and organisations were invited to testify.[5][6]

On 1 April 2019, the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation (POFMA) Bill was tabled in parliament for first reading. The Ministry of Law stated that the legislation seeks to protect the society from deliberate online falsehoods created by malicious actors by targeting falsehoods, not opinions and criticisms, nor satire or parody. It defines a falsehood as a statement of fact that is false or misleading.[7][8][9] After concerns were raised about the Bill's scope, ministers gave reassurances that the bill will not affect free speech. The Bill was passed with a 72–9 vote on 8 May 2019 after a two-day debate.[10] The POFMA Act came into effect on 2 October 2019, with the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) the agency in charge of the Act. Subsidiary legislation is also laid out in the Act detailing how the Act will work, including court challenges that take nine days at maximum and cost as little as $200.[11]

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, on 31 January, the Ministry of Communications and Information no longer exempts social media platforms, search engines and Internet intermediaries from complying with POFMA, with these platforms required to comply with general correction directions issued. The exemptions initially applied when the law first took effect.[12]

There were concerns that the Act would enable authorities to suppress criticism and dissent.[13] Section 2(2)(b) defines a false statement as "if it is false or misleading, whether wholly or in part, and whether on its own or in the context in which it appears".[14] Satire, parody, opinions and criticisms are expressively not covered by the POFMA Act.[7][8][9][15]

Section 3 of the Act covers any statements that are made available to one or more end-users in Singapore via the internet, SMS or MMS.[14] The platforms include social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, and other online closed groups such private chat groups and social media groups.[16]

The purpose of the Act,as outlined in section 5 is to:[14]

1. to prevent the communication of false statements of fact in Singapore and to enable measures to be taken to counteract the effects of such communication;
2. to suppress the financing, promotion and other support of online locations that repeatedly communicate false statements of fact in Singapore;
3. to enable measures to be taken to detect, control and safeguard against coordinated inauthentic behaviour and other misuses of online accounts and bots; and
4. to enable measures to be taken to enhance disclosure of information concerning paid content directed towards a political end.

Part 2 of the POFMA Act criminalises the communication of false statements of facts in Singapore through Section 7 even if the person communicating it is not in Singapore, and that the false statement is detrimental to "the security of Singapore", "public health, public safety, public tranquillity or public finances", friendly international relations with other countries, influence the outcome of parliamentary and presidential elections or referendums, incite tension between different groups of people, or diminish public confidence in the public service or general governance of Singapore.[14]

Through Section 8, the creation and usage of bots or enabling another person to utilise, with the intention to communicate a false statement of fact in Singapore is prohibited.[14] Section 9 prohibits solicit, receive, or agree to receive a benefit for providing a service which the person knows is or will be used to communicate a false statement of fact in Singapore, if the service is in fact used in the communication. However, Section 9 is not applicable on intermediary services such as internet intermediaries, telecommunications services, public internet access services, or a computing resource service.[14]

Contravening these prohibitions may see fines and/or prison terms imposed on the offender.[14]

A Correction Direction may be sent out to a communicator of the false statement, instructing the person to place a notice stating that the statement was found to be false and a correction of the false statement. The placement location of this notice may also be specified at an online location or in close proximity of the false statement, or in newspapers.[16][17] A Stop Communication Direction may be issued as well, instructing the person to disable access of the false statement to end-users in Singapore by a specific time.[16][17]

Concurrently, a Targeted Correction Direction may be sent to internet intermediaries and providers of mass media services to communicate the correction notice in response to a false statement to end-users in Singapore.[16] A Disabling Direction may be issued to disable access an online location to end-users in Singapore.[16] A General Correction Direction may be sent to instruct publication of correction notice on the relevant platforms.[16]

If an online location has three or more false statements, it may be tagged as an declared online location. A declared online location will need to place a notice of such declaration for up to two years, and are not able to receive any financial support.[16]

Non-compliance of these Directions may accrue fines and/or prison terms by the offender.[16][17] An Access Block Order on online location may be issued in event of noncompliance as well to instruct Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) to order internet service providers to disable access to the online location.[16][17]

To deal with fake accounts and bots, an Account Restriction Direction may be issued to order an internet intermediary to shut down any fake accounts and bots on its platforms and/or prevent the accounts' owners from interacting with end-users in Singapore.[16]

Government ministers will issue instructions to correct falsehoods through an appointed Competent Authority, as laid out in Section 6.[14] The Ministry of Communications and Information established a POFMA Office within IMDA to administer the law, on basis that IMDA has relevant connections to the tech industry and experience in administering the Broadcasting Act and other similar content regulation policies.[18] The POFMA Office maintains a registry of Declared Online Locations[19] and also establishes a mechanism for the general public to apply for a relevant Direction or Declaration to the relevant ministry.[20] All applications to vary or cancel any Directions or Declaration must be made within 14 days to the High Court.[21][20]

The first Correction Direction was issued to Brad Bowyer, a Progress Singapore Party member, to place a correction notice on statements of falsehoods which implied that the Government controls Temasek’s and GIC’s commercial decisions, that billions of dollars in investments were wasted on the canned Amaravati city project, and Salt Bae's parent company, which received an investment from Temasek, was debt-laden.[22] The commercial decisions made by Temasek and GIC are asserted to be independent, while only millions of dollars was sunk into the city project, and the investment made in D.ream International BV, and not in one of D.ream International BV’s shareholders called Doğuş Holding that was reportedly in difficulties.[22] Bowyer placed the correction notice when he received the Direction.[22] The PSP subsequently protested, stating that "the Act falls short of the values of transparency, independence and accountability" and that it could be used by ministers to declare a piece of news to be "falsehood, without requiring any justification, criteria or standards".[23] Ministry of Law refuted stating that the reasons to use the law were stated clearly, and that the correction notice does not curtail one's freedom of speech, and will instead help end-users make up their mind as to what is the truth.[23]

The second Correction Direction was issued to Alex Tan on 28 November 2019 to place a correction notice on a falsehood in a post on the Straits Times Review's Facebook page alleging that People's Action Party would field a Christian evangelist as a candidate in the upcoming elections to garner support from Christian community and possibly turning Singapore into a Christian state, and that a whistleblower was arrested and would be charged for "fabricating fake news".[24] The claims were found to be false and baseless, with no one being arrested and charged while the site made other “scurrilous, absurd” allegations on Singapore's election process.[24] However, Tan did not intend to comply, saying that he is no longer a Singapore citizen and now lives abroad.[24] This resulted a Targeted Correction Direction being issued to Facebook to place the correction notice on the Facebook post.[24][25] Tan and his Facebook pages were subjected to subsequent Declared Online Locations, which he did not comply, and Facebook was then mandated to disable Singapore users' access to his pages.[26] Facebook complied, however with concerns that "blocking orders such as this are severe and risk being misused to stifle voices and perspectives on the internet".[27]

An editorial on The Online Citizen questioned why POFMA was not applied on foreign news outlets where there are false statements, and diplomats were responding with lengthy letters to disagree with the false statements instead.[28]

The Media Literacy Council (MLC), an outreach programme under IMDA which promotes digital and media literacy,[29][30] included satire as an example of fake news in one of its Facebook posts and info-graphics on 5 September 2019.[31] The MLC took down the post and issued an apology on 8 September, saying that they would review their materials.[31] Shanmugan attributed it as a mistake or inaccuracy being made by the MLC.[15]

• Fake news
• Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods
• Anti-social Media Bill (Nigeria)

• Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act legislation text
• POFMA Office - Office within Infocomm Media Development Authority that is responsible for the administration of the law