First Criminal Charge Under Singapore’s Fake News Law Over TikTok Videos Targeting Race

A 34-year-old man is due in court this week, charged under Singapore's Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) for posting TikTok videos allegedly aimed at stirring up racial hostility and making false claims about the Government. It’s the first criminal prosecution since the law came into effect in 2019 — a serious step up from the dozens of correction orders issued in the past.

For years, POFMA has mostly been used to slap correction notices on politicians, activists and media outlets. But this new case signals a harder line: the Attorney-General's Chambers is now willing to press charges that could lead to fines or even jail time. The accused allegedly posted content that crossed the line from falsehood into outright provocation, targeting racial harmony — one of the most sensitive issues in Singapore.

From Correction Notices to Criminal Courts

When POFMA was passed, the Government insisted it was a scalpel, not a sledgehammer — designed to quickly correct falsehoods without shutting down free speech. For the most part, that meant POFMA Correction Directions were the tool of choice. These require the offender to run a notice alongside the original post, pointing readers to the Government's fact-checked version.

During the #GE2020 election, POFMA became a household name. Nearly every day, candidates from both sides received correction directions. One of the most high-profile recipients was Hazel Poa of the Progress Singapore Party, who was told to correct statements about the workforce. Critics labelled it "The POFMA Election," arguing the avalanche of directions made it hard for voters to separate spin from fact. Still, amid all that, there were what some called "youthful glimmers of hope" — younger voters digging into the issues despite the fog of correction orders.

The Debate: Safeguard or Silencer?

Not everyone buys the Government's line. Historian PJ Thum, in Episode 8 of his podcast "The Show with PJ Thum", broke down how POFMA could be abused. Titled "How bad laws are created and abused in Singapore (A POFMA case study)," the episode argues that the law's vague wording and lack of judicial oversight let the Government punish dissent under the guise of fighting falsehoods. Thum points to cases where correction directions were issued for opinions, not facts — a worrying trend, he says.

While Thum's view is a minority one here — most Singaporeans trust the authorities to use POFMA responsibly — the new criminal charge is bound to reignite that debate. Is this TikToker a genuine threat to social cohesion, or is the state flexing its muscles to chill free speech?

Key POFMA Cases So Far

To get a sense of where we're headed, it helps to look back at how POFMA has been applied:

• 2019: The Breakfast Grill case — The first correction direction issued to a blogger for false claims about a police investigation.
• 2020: GE2020 blitz — Over 10 correction directions during the campaign, including to opposition parties and even international media outlets.
• 2021: Hazel Poa's multiple notices — She received several for posts about foreign workers and economic data.
• 2023: Online news portals — Sites like an independent online news portal were hit with correction directions repeatedly before eventually shutting down.

Notice that all of these were civil remedies — nobody ended up in court. Until now.

What This Means Going Forward

The move to criminal charges changes the game. Under POFMA, a conviction can mean fines of up to S$50,000 and jail terms of up to five years for individuals. For bad actors spreading deliberate falsehoods that threaten racial or religious harmony, the State now has a loaded weapon. But as with any powerful tool, the question is trigger discipline.

This TikTok case will be closely watched by lawyers, activists and journalists. If the court finds the accused guilty, it sets a precedent that online content creators — even those with small followings — can face criminal consequences. If the defence pokes holes in how POFMA was applied, we might see a rethink of how aggressively the law is used.

One thing's for sure: POFMA is no longer just about attaching a correction note. It's now about handcuffs and courtrooms. And in a hyper-connected city-state where everyone's a publisher, that's a story worth keeping an eye on.