Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Southeast Asia The use of POFMA against an opposition party member in the lead-up to general elections in Singapore raises a concern that the law will be used to target individuals who express critical dissent. In the case of Bowyer, the Ministry of Finance did not explain how “public safety” or “public tranquility” were threatened by his statement, or provide clarity as to how the government determines that statements “diminish public confidence”. His comments could have been adequately countered by a statement of clarification by relevant government agencies. Bowyer’s claim about the independence of the companies was an opinion that should have been allowed to be freely rebutted or challenged as a matter of public interest.464 Singaporean observers noted that the use of POFMA here drew more attention to what would have remained an obscure post by an opposition politician suggesting that the targeting of Bowyer might have been intended as a message to the general population that the POFMA could be used on politically-linked discussions ahead of the general elections.465 Philippines In July 2019, the ‘Anti-False Content’ Bill (‘AFC Bill’) was introduced in the Senate to “protect the public from any misleading or false information that is being published and has become prevalent on the Internet”, noting the State’s commitment to “counteract concomitant prejudicial effects to public interest while remaining cognizant of the people’s fundamental rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press”.466 Provisions in the AFC Bill are similar to those of Malaysia’s AFNA and Singapore’s POFMA, allowing government authorities to have wide powers to determine and control what kinds of information are permitted online. Section 5 of the AFC Bill thus allows for the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Cybercrime to order individuals, administrators of online accounts and online intermediaries to “rectify”, “take down’” or “block access” to any information that would “tend to mislead the public”.467 The bill provides no guidance as to how DOJ officers are to make the determination of whether a piece of information should be permitted or regulated online, and makes no mention of the rights to free expression and information. Information 464 Also expressed in ICJ communications with partners. 465 ICJ communications with partners. 466 ‘Act Prohibiting the Publication and Proliferation of False Content on the Philippine Internet, Providing Measures to Counteract its Effects and Prescribing Penalties Therefor’ (‘AFC Bill’), Available at: https://senate.gov.ph/lisdata/3022527054!.pdf 467 AFC Bill, section 5. 123