Rights groups call on Singapore to drop charges against first POFMA criminal defendant

Four of the world's leading human rights organisations have jointly called on the Singapore government to immediately drop all criminal charges against Jay Ish'haq Rajoo and repeal the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), describing the case as an alarming escalation of state power against free expression.

The joint statement, published on 25 March 2026, was signed by Amnesty International, CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, FORUM-ASIA, and Human Rights Watch. It characterises POFMA as incompatible with international human rights law and calls for its outright repeal.

Rajoo, a 59-year-old Singaporean and vocal critic of the government, was charged on 11 March 2026 with six counts across three separate laws. Authorities have confirmed he is the first person to face criminal prosecution under Section 7 of POFMA since the legislation came into force in October 2019.

The charges and their basis

Rajoo faces three counts of communicating false statements of fact under Section 7 of POFMA, two counts of defamation under Section 500 of the Penal Code 1871, and one count of attempting to promote feelings of ill will between different racial groups under Section 298A(a) of the Penal Code.

The defamation charges relate to statements allegedly made against former Prime Minister and Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister for National Development Chee Hong Tat.

The POFMA Office and the Singapore Police Force said the charges arose from TikTok videos Rajoo posted between 2023 and 2025. Authorities said those videos contained false statements of fact and content that could encourage hostility between racial communities.

A conviction under Section 7 of POFMA may result in a fine of up to S$50,000 (around US$39,000), a prison term of up to five years, or both. Separate penalties apply under the Penal Code provisions relating to defamation and racial harmony.

A history of POFMA directions

The case has its origins in ministerial correction direction orders issued against Rajoo in 2023.

According to the POFMA Office, he uploaded TikTok videos in July and August of that year making claims about voting secrecy, Central Provident Fund (CPF) policies, and the affordability of Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats.

The CPF is a compulsory savings and pension scheme for Singaporeans. The POFMA Office said the statements in the videos were inaccurate and constituted falsehoods under the Act.

Several ministers, including the Minister for National Development, issued Rajoo with correction direction orders requiring him to publish notices alongside his original posts stating the videos had contained false statements and directing viewers to the government's official clarification. TikTok was also required to communicate correction notices to all Singapore-based users who had viewed the original content.

According to the joint statement, Rajoo complied with all correction direction orders at the time they were issued.

The conditional warning and its alleged breach

In 2024, the police and POFMA Office issued Rajoo with a two-year conditional warning in connection with the 2023 videos. The warning required him to refrain from committing further criminal offences during that period.

In September 2025, the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth issued Rajoo with a further correction direction order over a TikTok video posted on 26 August 2025. The POFMA Office said the video falsely claimed that Chee had announced that the government would provide money and resources to attract mainland Chinese nationals to Singapore and develop them for leadership roles. The video also allegedly claimed that state resources were being used to nurture leaders exclusively from the Chinese community.

Authorities said these statements were false and capable of encouraging hostility between racial communities. Rajoo again posted the required correction notice.

However, the government subsequently determined that the 2025 video constituted a breach of the 2024 conditional warning. Authorities said the breach triggered further investigations and ultimately resulted in the March 2026 charges, which include offences linked back to the earlier 2023 videos.

How POFMA correction directions work

Under POFMA, ministers hold broad powers to issue correction direction orders against individuals, media organisations, and online platforms. Such orders require the recipient to publish a correction notice alongside the original post, article, or video, directing readers to a government "clarification."

Individuals who fail to comply with a correction direction may face a fine of up to S$20,000 (around US$15,600) or up to 12 months' imprisonment, or both. Companies that do not comply may face fines of up to S$500,000 (around US$390,000).

The joint statement argues that POFMA does not provide a public interest defence for those who challenge its orders, and that ministers exercise wide discretion in determining what constitutes a false statement — effectively allowing the government to adjudicate what is considered true or untrue in the public sphere.

Separately, independent media outlets and human rights organisations designated as Declared Online Locations under POFMA have in some cases been restricted from receiving online donations as a consequence of that status.

International human rights concerns

In their joint statement, the four organisations argue that many provisions of POFMA are incompatible with international law. They state that overly broad prohibitions on sharing information — particularly those built on concepts such as "false news" or "misinformation" — conflict with international human rights standards.

They contend that any lawful restriction on freedom of expression must satisfy a three-part test: legality, a legitimate aim, and necessity and proportionality. The organisations argue that criminal sanctions are generally not a justifiable response to misinformation or disinformation.

They further note that during the Universal Periodic Review of Singapore's human rights record in 2021, multiple states at the United Nations Human Rights Council called on the Singapore government to review or repeal POFMA to ensure it does not interfere with the right to freedom of expression.

A pattern of use against critics

The joint statement characterises the Rajoo prosecution as part of a broader pattern of POFMA being used to suppress criticism of public officials and government institutions.

The organisations said that in 2025, multiple POFMA orders targeted individuals speaking out about the death penalty and other issues authorities deemed sensitive.

In November 2025, the website MalaysiaNow was blocked after allegedly communicating online falsehoods and declining to comply with POFMA orders. The site had published material raising concerns about the execution, treatment, and right to a fair trial of Malaysian national Pannir Selvam Pranthaman.

The joint statement called on the Singapore government to end what the organisations described as the selective use of the law and said the pattern of its application underscored the urgency of repealing it entirely.

Next steps

Rajoo indicated on 11 March 2026 that he intended to engage a lawyer. He is scheduled to return to court on 8 April 2026.

The joint statement urged Singapore authorities to drop all charges against Rajoo and to end restrictions — including correction directions — that the organisations said were aimed at silencing critics rather than serving any legitimate public interest.