Singapore man charged over TikTok videos allegedly promoting racial ill will and falsehoods

A 59-year-old Singaporean man will appear in court on Wednesday, 11 March 2026, over a series of TikTok videos that the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) Office allege promoted ill will between racial groups and contained false statements of fact.

The SPF and the POFMA Office made the announcement in a joint news release on Tuesday. TOC understands the individual to be Jay Ish'haq Rajoo.

He faces a total of six charges: two counts of defamation, one count of attempting to promote feelings of ill will between different racial groups on grounds of race, and three counts of communicating false statements of fact under POFMA. The charges stem from videos posted on 17 July 2023, 12 August 2023, and 26 August 2025.

The 2025 video and allegations of racial ill will

In a video published on 26 August 2025, the man made remarks that the SPF and the POFMA Office allege promoted ill will between the Chinese community and other racial groups in Singapore.

The video also alleged that the government was using public money and resources to develop leaders exclusively from the Chinese race. According to the joint statement, authorities contend this claim is false.

The video is additionally said to contain statements that the SPF and the POFMA Office characterise as criminally defamatory of various public officials. These statements form the basis of the two defamation charges.

Breach of conditional warnings from 2024

The man had not previously faced court proceedings over the 2023 videos. Instead, following investigations, he was issued 24-month conditional warnings in 2024 by both the SPF and the POFMA Office.

Conditional warnings are a prosecutorial tool that allows authorities to defer criminal charges on the condition that the individual refrains from further criminal conduct within a specified period. They do not constitute a conviction, but expose the recipient to prosecution for the original offences should the conditions be breached.

According to the joint statement, authorities contend that the alleged commission of offences arising from the 26 August 2025 video constituted a breach of those warnings. He is therefore also being charged for the offences arising from the 2023 videos.

The 2023 videos: alleged falsehoods on voting and CPF

The two 2023 videos that are now the subject of charges each contained distinct claims that authorities contend were false.

In the video posted on 17 July 2023, the man stated that the government was capable of tracing individual votes in order to penalise voters. According to the POFMA Office, investigations indicated that the claim was based on hearsay and was not supported by evidence.

In the video posted on 12 August 2023, the man appeared to be raising concerns about the CPF Board's practice of charging members 2.5 per cent accrued interest on CPF savings used to repay HDB loans — a policy that has been a recurring point of public debate.

However, the POFMA Office characterised the video as containing the claim that no low- or middle-income CPF member who had used their savings to repay HDB loans had met either the Basic Retirement Sum or the Full Retirement Sum in their CPF accounts, and contended that this specific statement was false.

The agency noting in its statement that the man had not consulted publicly available information on the CPF Board and Ministry of Manpower websites before making the claim.

Correction directions and alleged non-compliance in 2023

The man's difficulties with authorities began in August 2023, when the POFMA Office issued him three correction directions in relation to videos he had published that month. At the time, he used the online moniker Dr Ishaq Jay.

Correction directions require individuals to post correction notices alongside their original content, accompanied by links to official government clarifications.

The POFMA Office described the mechanism as akin to a right of reply, saying it allows members of the public to view both the original post and the government's response before forming their own judgement.

According to the POFMA Office, the man did not fully comply with the correction directions and failed to publish the required notices by the stipulated deadline. He also changed his TikTok account handle from dr.ishhaq.jay to jay.ishhaq.rajoo, which the POFMA Office said rendered the correction notices inaccessible to viewers.

On 31 July 2024, he published a TikTok video in which he confirmed that he had received a 24-month conditional warning. The warning covered alleged offences under Sections 7 and 15 of POFMA. Section 7 addresses the communication of false statements of fact, while Section 15 covers non-compliance with POFMA directions.

Penalties under POFMA

The charges carry significant penalties under Singapore law. A conviction under Section 7 of POFMA may result in a fine of up to S$50,000, a jail term of up to five years, or both.

A conviction under Section 15 may result in a fine of up to S$20,000, a jail term of up to one year, or both. The defamation and racial harmony charges carry separate penalties under the relevant provisions of the Penal Code.

The man has not yet entered a plea. The case is scheduled to be heard on 11 March 2026.

About POFMA: passage, purpose, and criticism

POFMA was passed by the Singapore Parliament in May 2019 and came into force in October of that year. The government presented the legislation as a necessary tool to combat the spread of online misinformation, arguing that the rapid dissemination of falsehoods posed risks to public order, national security, and social cohesion.

Under the law, ministers are empowered to issue correction directions or take-down orders against content they deem to contain false statements of fact. A dedicated POFMA Office, operating under the Ministry of Law, oversees the administration and enforcement of the legislation.

Since its enactment, the law has drawn sustained criticism from civil society groups, legal observers, press freedom organisations, and opposition politicians, both in Singapore and internationally.

Critics have raised concerns that the broad discretion afforded to ministers — rather than the courts — to determine what constitutes a falsehood creates a risk of political misuse. Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders have both argued that the law could be used to suppress legitimate political speech and criticism of government policy under the guise of combating misinformation.

Opposition politicians in Singapore, including members of the Workers' Party, raised concerns during parliamentary debates that the law lacked adequate judicial oversight at the point of issuance, and that the burden placed on individuals to challenge directions through the courts was disproportionate.

The government has consistently rejected these characterisations, maintaining that POFMA targets only verifiably false statements of fact and does not restrict opinions, commentary, or criticism. It has also pointed to the availability of judicial review as a safeguard against ministerial overreach.

The law has been invoked on numerous occasions since 2019, targeting individuals, news outlets, and political figures. Its application to alternative media and civil society voices has remained a point of contention in ongoing debates about press freedom and political pluralism in Singapore.