Minister K Shanmugam issues targeted correction to Meta amid #idefypofma campaign challenging Pofma orders

Singapore’s Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam has directed social media giant Meta to issue targeted correction directions after a campaign of activists reposted statements by anti-death penalty advocate Kokila Annamalai on Facebook and Instagram.

The correction order, issued under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), requires Meta to notify users who engaged with these posts that they contain “false statements.”

This directive comes amidst a groundswell of support for Annamalai’s position, expressed through the #idefypofma campaign.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) stated on 5 November that it had identified around 40 social media posts containing content that allegedly misrepresented Singapore’s legal processes related to executions and drug trafficking.

These posts were initially shared by the Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), a group advocating for the abolition of the death penalty, and later reposted by 33 activists and supporters as part of a coordinated campaign backing Annamalai.

Annamalai had previously declined to comply with a correction direction issued on 5 October, after she posted about the execution of Azwan bin Bohari, suggesting legal inconsistencies in Singapore’s handling of capital cases.

In a detailed commentary, she argued that the government was using POFMA to control public debate and silence opposition voices.

She described the directive as an “unlawful overreach,” claiming her statements reflected personal opinions rather than falsehoods.

Following her refusal, the #idefypofma campaign gained traction, with 33 individuals—activists, ordinary citizens, and advocates—reposting Annamalai’s message in an open act of defiance.

This group asserted their belief that the government’s use of Pofma was excessive, with statements like, “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.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Suraendher Kumarr (@kumarrnotcow)

The campaign has sought to initiate a public conversation about free speech, state power, and the limits of POFMA in regulating contentious issues.

Instead of issuing individual correction directions to each person who reposted Annamalai’s statements, Mr Shanmugam opted for a broad approach by targeting Meta directly.

By choosing a platform-wide directive instead of individual correction directions for each of the approximately 40 individuals, Mr Shanmugam appears to preempt a situation where many individuals could openly defy the corrections, which might challenge the government’s control over dissent under Pofma.

The Online Citizen (TOC) previously reached out to Mr Shanmugam on 30 October, inquiring whether further action would be taken regarding the repeated statements, as these posts align closely with prior content that received correction directions. To date, however, no response has been provided by the minister.

The correction direction issued to Meta includes a link to the government’s official clarification, titled “Corrections regarding false statements concerning legal processes for prisoners awaiting capital punishment and the prosecution of drug trafficking charges.”

An MHA spokesperson commented, “By reposting the TJC posts, these individuals chose to communicate falsehoods that they knew or should have known contained inaccurate statements.”

According to the ministry, this approach with Meta ensures that users who interacted with the posts are alerted to the government’s official stance without necessitating removal of the original content.

POFMA, enacted in 2019, grants government ministers the authority to issue correction directions on statements deemed false or misleading. Since its enactment, Pofma has sparked considerable debate, with detractors contending that it grants ministers unchecked power to regulate speech and risks being used to silence dissent.

Non-compliance can result in fines up to S$20,000 and prison terms up to a year for individuals, while companies may face fines up to S$500,000. The act has long been controversial, with detractors arguing that it grants the government unchecked power to regulate speech, stifling dissent rather than solely targeting genuine misinformation.

The latest developments underscore these tensions. Annamalai’s outspoken critique of the POFMA directive and the #idefypofma campaign signals a mounting resistance within Singapore’s civil society against what participants see as excessive government control over public dialogue on issues such as the death penalty.

Annamalai defended her posts as legitimate expressions of opinion, accusing the government of attempting to coerce conformity through Pofma.

“Policing my opinions is beyond the scope of Pofma… Shanmugam may have the power to issue Pofma orders, but I have the strength of my conviction,” she stated.

As the #idefypofma campaign gains visibility, some participants are calling for POFMA to be re-evaluated to ensure it does not infringe on freedoms of expression, especially around divisive topics like the death penalty.

To date, mainstream media has not covered the #idefypofma campaign, despite its significant implications for public discourse in Singapore.

While Home Affairs Minister Shanmugam holds the record for issuing the most POFMA correction directions, with 20 orders to date, the broader impact of these measures on Singapore’s public sphere remains a matter of intense debate.