The Singapore government is facing growing calls from human rights organizations to immediately drop all criminal charges against government critic Jay Ish’haq Rajoo and repeal the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA). Rajoo has become the first person to face criminal prosecution under POFMA since the law came into force in October 2019, a development that critics say marks a serious escalation in the use of the law against peaceful expression. Rights groups argue that the case highlights both the broad powers granted under POFMA and the law’s incompatibility with international standards on freedom of expression.
On 11 March 2026, Rajoo was charged with three counts of communicating “false statements of fact” under Section 7 of POFMA. In addition, he faces two counts of defamation involving former Prime Minister and Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister for National Development Chee Hong Tat, as well as one count of “promoting feelings of ill will between different racial groups” under the Penal Code. If convicted, he could face a fine of up to US$39,300 and up to five years in prison under POFMA alone, with additional penalties and possible prison time under the Penal Code charges. Human rights groups say the scale of the potential punishment is deeply disproportionate for speech-related offences.
The case against Rajoo stems from a series of TikTok posts and prior enforcement actions taken under POFMA. In 2023, several ministers, including the Minister for National Development, issued Correction Direction orders against him over videos that questioned the use of Central Provident Funds (CPF), Singapore’s compulsory savings and pension scheme, and alleged that the government penalized citizens who did not vote for it. Under these orders, Rajoo was required to publish notices stating that his videos contained “false statements of fact” and directing viewers to official government clarifications. He complied with those orders, and TikTok was also required to send correction notices to Singapore-based users who had viewed the original content.
In 2024, Rajoo received a two-year conditional warning from the police and the POFMA Office in connection with those videos. The warning required him to avoid any further “criminal conduct” during that period. In 2025, he was again issued a POFMA Correction Direction, this time over a TikTok video alleging that the government used public resources to selectively develop leaders of Chinese ethnicity. Rajoo once more complied and posted the required correction notice. However, in March 2026, the government stated that because the 2025 video breached the earlier conditional warning, he would now be criminally charged for both the 2023 and 2025 videos under POFMA and other laws.
At the heart of the controversy is the way POFMA operates. The law allows government ministers to issue Correction Directions requiring individuals or platforms to display government-mandated notices alongside disputed content. These notices effectively label the content as false and direct readers to the government’s own version of events. Under Section 7, individuals accused of communicating “false statements of fact” can face large fines or up to five years’ imprisonment, while companies can face even heavier financial penalties. Separate penalties also apply if individuals or platforms fail to comply with correction orders. Critics say this gives ministers excessive discretion to decide what counts as truth in public debate and creates a powerful tool for controlling online discourse.
Human rights groups argue that POFMA has been increasingly used not to address genuine public harm, but to suppress criticism of government officials and policies. Since its introduction in 2019, the law has reportedly been used against independent media outlets, opposition politicians, government critics, and human rights defenders. In 2025, multiple POFMA orders were issued against people raising concerns about sensitive issues such as the death penalty. Later that year, the website MalaysiaNow was blocked after it refused to comply with POFMA orders related to its reporting on the execution and fair trial concerns involving Pannir Selvam Pranthaman, a Malaysian national. These cases have reinforced concerns that the law is being selectively enforced against dissenting voices.
The broader criticism is that many provisions of POFMA do not meet international human rights standards. Under international law, any restriction on freedom of expression must satisfy the tests of legality, legitimate aim, necessity, and proportionality. Human rights experts have repeatedly warned that overly broad laws targeting “false news” or “misinformation” can be abused to silence criticism, especially when governments are allowed to define what is false without strong independent oversight. Criminal sanctions, in particular, are widely viewed as an excessive response to disputed or misleading speech. During Singapore’s 2021 Universal Periodic Review at the UN Human Rights Council, several states recommended that the government review or repeal POFMA to ensure it does not violate the right to freedom of expression.
Against this backdrop, rights organizations say Rajoo’s prosecution is emblematic of a broader pattern of increasing repression in Singapore. They are urging authorities not only to drop all charges against him for his peaceful expression, but also to end the use of Correction Directions and other restrictions that they say are being used to silence critics rather than serve a legitimate public interest. For these groups, the case has become a defining example of why POFMA should be repealed entirely. They argue that the law’s structure, its selective use, and its chilling effect on public debate make it fundamentally incompatible with international standards on free expression and democratic accountability.
