POFMA Used Against a Repeat Online Critic
After five POFMA correction directions in 2023, the government declared Kenneth Jeyaretnam's website and social media pages "Declared Online Locations", requiring warnings and barring him from profiting from them for two years.
Topics: politics, society and culture
Example
What happened: After five POFMA correction directions between July and November 2023, the government on 11 December 2023 declared political commentator Kenneth Jeyaretnam's website The Ricebowl Singapore and his Facebook, Instagram, X and LinkedIn pages to be Declared Online Locations for two years. Visitors must be shown a warning that the pages have carried falsehoods, and he may not profit from running them. By March 2025 he had received his ninth correction direction.
Use it for: governments can use law to slow the spread of falsehoods from repeat sources by attaching warnings to them instead of removing the content outright.
Why it matters: a correction direction leaves the post up but places the government's facts beside it; when the same source keeps posting falsehoods, a standing warning and a ban on earning money from the pages reduce both its reach and its incentive.
Limit: The minister decides what counts as false in the first instance, and critics argue this lets the government label its critics; the recipient can challenge a direction in court, but must start that challenge, so the case is contested.
Key facts
- Kenneth Jeyaretnam received POFMA correction directions on 16 July, 2 August, 22 August, 30 August and 2 November 2023.
- On 11 December 2023 his website The Ricebowl Singapore and his Facebook, Instagram, X and LinkedIn pages were declared Declared Online Locations from 12 December 2023 to 11 December 2025.
- Operators of Declared Online Locations must display a warning notice, and it is an offence for them to derive financial or other material benefit from operating them.
How to use this example in a GP essay
Should governments regulate what people say online?
Claim
governments can use law to slow the spread of falsehoods from repeat sources by attaching warnings to them instead of removing the content outright
How the evidence supports it
a correction direction leaves the post up but places the government's facts beside it; when the same source keeps posting falsehoods, a standing warning and a ban on earning money from the pages reduce both its reach and its incentive
Limitation
The minister decides what counts as false in the first instance, and critics argue this lets the government label its critics; the recipient can challenge a direction in court, but must start that challenge, so the case is contested.
Relevance
It shows POFMA used beyond the pandemic against a political critic, which is the strongest test of whether the law fights falsehood or chills dissent.
Limitations
- The minister decides what counts as false in the first instance, and critics argue this lets the government label its critics; the recipient can challenge a direction in court, but must start that challenge, so the case is contested.
Evaluations
politics evaluation
Support
POFMA left Jeyaretnam's posts online and added the government's facts beside them, which supporters argue is a lighter touch than the takedowns or arrests used against critics in many countries.
Counterargument
The directions were ordered by ministers about claims concerning government matters, so the government acted as both party and first judge in the same dispute.
Rebuttal
The courts provide a check: in 2021 the Court of Appeal ruled that truth and falsehood are for a court to decide on evidence, not for the minister to declare, though the recipient must bring the challenge.
Additional support
Nine directions to one person in under two years show the law being used repeatedly against the same source, which is the pattern Declared Online Locations were designed for.
society and culture evaluation
Support
A standing warning on a page that has repeatedly carried falsehoods helps ordinary readers judge it before they share it, which protects the shared facts a society needs for debate.
Counterargument
A government warning attached to a critic's pages may lead people to avoid all criticism of the government, chilling legitimate debate along with false claims.
Rebuttal
Whether the law chills debate depends on how narrowly it is used; tracking which claims are corrected, and whether courts uphold them, is a fairer test than assuming the worst or the best.
Additional support
Banning profit from Declared Online Locations targets a real driver of online falsehood: content that attracts outrage can also attract money.
Sources
- Ministry of Digital Development and Information (2023-12-11): Kenneth Jeyaretnam's pages made Declared Online Locations due to Multiple Online Falsehoods
- Ministry of Finance (2025-03-14): Issuance of Correction Direction under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act to Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam