POFMA Singapore: First Criminal Charge Filed Over TikTok Videos Promoting Racial Ill Will

A 34-year-old man is set to appear in court this week, charged under Singapore's Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) for posting TikTok videos that allegedly promoted ill will between racial groups and made false statements about the government. This marks the first criminal prosecution since the law took effect in 2019 — a significant escalation from the dozens of correction orders previously issued.

For years, POFMA has been used mainly 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 pull the trigger on charges that can lead to fines and even jail time. The accused allegedly posted content that crossed the line from falsehood into active provocation, targeting racial harmony — one of Singapore's most sensitive nerves.

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 stifling free speech. For the most part, that meant POFMA Correction Directions were the weapon of choice. These require the offender to put up a notice alongside the original post, linking to the government's fact-checked version.

During the #GE2020 election, POFMA became a household term. Almost daily, candidates from both sides received correction directions. One of the most prominent recipients was Hazel Poa of the Progress Singapore Party, who was ordered to correct statements about the workforce. Critics dubbed it "The Pofma Election," pointing out that the flurry of directions made it hard for voters to separate spin from substance. Yet, 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 narrative. Historian PJ Thum, in Episode 8 of his podcast "The Show with PJ Thum", dissected how POFMA can be abused. Titled "How bad laws are created and abused in Singapore (A POFMA case study)," the episode argues that the law's vague definitions and lack of judicial oversight allow the government to 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 represents a minority here — most Singaporeans trust the authorities to use POFMA responsibly — the new criminal charge will inevitably reignite that debate. Is this TikToker a genuine threat to social cohesion, or is the state flexing its muscles to chill speech?

Key POFMA Cases So Far

To understand 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 prominent 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 slapped with correction directions repeatedly before being shut down.

Notice that all these were civil remedies — no one went to court. Until now.

What This Means Going Forward

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

This TikTok case will be watched closely 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 heat. If the defence pokes holes in the application of POFMA, 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 following.