33 individuals post #idefypofma campaign in solidarity with activist Kokila Annamalai

On 5 October 2024, the Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), an advocacy group opposing Singapore's death penalty, received its third Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) correction direction.

Issued by Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, the correction was in response to alleged false statements made by TJC regarding Singapore's death row processes and the prosecution of drug trafficking cases.

These statements were shared on TJC's website and social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter).

Civil activist Kokila Annamalai also received a correction direction over similar posts shared between 4 and 5 October 2024.

According to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the posts by both TJC and Annamalai contained misinformation about Singapore's legal procedures, particularly regarding the scheduling of executions and the prosecution of drug trafficking offences.

MHA stated that the posts suggested the government arbitrarily schedules executions without following legal protocols, and that the state does not bear the burden of proving drug trafficking charges.

The ministry refuted these claims, asserting that Singapore strictly adheres to legal procedures, ensuring all legal avenues are exhausted before scheduling executions. MHA further emphasised that the prosecution must always prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, including in drug-related offences.

Following Kokila Annamalai’s refusal to comply with the correction direction, the POFMA Office issued a targeted correction to Meta Platforms and X on 11 October, requiring these platforms to display a correction notice in relation to her posts.

MHA also initiated investigations into Annamalai’s non-compliance, with potential penalties that could include fines or imprisonment.

In a defiant public statement, Annamalai defended her decision to disobey the correction order, describing it as an unlawful overreach of ministerial powers.

She argued that her posts, which discussed the execution of Azwan bin Bohari, contained only her opinions on the legal process and did not include falsehoods.

Annamalai accused Mr Shanmugam of abusing his authority by attempting to silence dissent and control public discourse on controversial topics like the death penalty.

She expressed her refusal to "parrot" the government’s narrative, particularly on a matter as contentious as capital punishment.

Annamalai wrote, "Policing my opinions is beyond the scope of POFMA... It is a gross abuse of power to force those with an opposing view to discredit and humiliate ourselves... Shanmugam may have the power to issue POFMA orders, but I have the strength of my conviction."

Mr Shanmugam holds the record for issuing the most POFMA correction directions. To date, he has issued 19 correction directions, far outpacing other ministers, with National Development Minister Desmond Lee in second place with 10.

#idefypofma campaign

Her statement resonated with many, and on 22 October 2024, a group of 33 individuals, including activists, workers, and ordinary people who found this wrong and a huge overreach, launched a solidarity campaign under the hashtag #idefypofma.

These individuals reposted Annamalai’s original message, which had been subject to the POFMA correction, in an act of collective defiance.

In their posts, they expressed firm support for Annamalai, echoing her belief that the government had misused POFMA to suppress criticism and alternative viewpoints.

The individuals asserted: "We stand by everything in the post. Nothing in it is false. We believe that the government has misused POFMA against criticism, dissent and alternative views."

The campaign, #idefypofma, challenges the reach of POFMA, a law enacted by the Singaporean government in 2019 to combat misinformation, particularly online.

Under POFMA, government ministers can issue correction directions to individuals or platforms, requiring them to display corrected information alongside allegedly false statements. Non-compliance can result in significant penalties, including fines of up to S$20,000 for individuals and up to S$500,000 for companies, as well as possible jail terms.

POFMA has sparked controversy since its inception, with critics arguing that it grants excessive powers to ministers and is used disproportionately against dissenters, activists, and opposition figures.

Civil society groups have expressed concerns that the law could be used to stifle free speech and legitimate criticism, particularly given that ministers, not independent judicial bodies, have the initial authority to issue correction directions. While there is a legal avenue to appeal these directions, the process can be costly and daunting for individuals.

Annamalai’s refusal to comply with the POFMA correction and the subsequent #idefypofma campaign highlight ongoing tensions in Singapore over the limits of free speech, especially in relation to sensitive issues like the death penalty.

Despite the government’s assertions that POFMA is necessary to safeguard Singapore from the harms of misinformation, the law’s use against activists and advocacy groups continues to raise concerns about its broader implications for free speech.

Critics argue that the law, while intended to protect the public interest, risks becoming a tool for political control, particularly when used to silence those who voice opposition to government policies.

As TJC and activists like Annamalai continue to advocate against capital punishment, they face increasing scrutiny and legal challenges under POFMA. The solidarity expressed by the 33 individuals in the #idefypofma campaign demonstrates a growing resistance among some in Singapore’s civil society against what they see as an encroachment on public discourse and political expression.