First Criminal Charge Under Singapore's Fake News Law Over TikTok Videos Stirring Racial Tension

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 that allegedly promoted ill will between racial groups and made false claims about the government. It's the first criminal prosecution since the law kicked off in 2019 — a major step up from the dozens of correction orders handed out before.

Up until now, 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 went beyond simple falsehoods into active provocation, taking aim at racial harmony — one of Singapore's most sensitive flashpoints.

From Correction Notices to Criminal Courts

When POFMA was passed, the government said it was a scalpel, not a sledgehammer — designed to quickly correct misinformation without trampling free speech. For the most part, that meant POFMA Correction Directions were the go-to tool. These require the offender to run a notice alongside their original post, linking 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 from the Progress Singapore Party, who was told to correct statements she'd made about the workforce. Critics dubbed it "The POFMA Election," arguing the blitz of directions made it tough 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", took a close look at how POFMA could be abused. Titled "How bad laws are created and abused in Singapore (A POFMA case study)," the episode argues 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 reckons.

While Thum's take is a minority view 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 put a dampener on free speech?

Key POFMA Cases So Far

To see where things are heading, it helps to look back at how POFMA's been used:

• 2019: The Breakfast Grill case — The first correction direction went to a blogger over false claims about a police investigation.
• 2020: GE2020 blitz — More than 10 correction directions during the campaign, including to opposition parties and even big international media outlets.
• 2021: Hazel Poa's multiple notices — She copped several for posts about foreign workers and economic data.
• 2023: Online news portals — Sites like an independent online news portal got repeated correction directions before eventually being shut down.

Notice all those were civil remedies — no one ended up in 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 weapon. But as with any powerful tool, the question is all about 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 cop criminal heat. If the defence pokes holes in how POFMA's been 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.