120 Dictating the Internet: Prior to the passage of the POFMA, in April 2019, the ICJ addressed a letter to the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Ministers, Minister for Law and Speaker of Parliament highlighting key concerns in the Act that needed to be addressed by the Singapore government.451 Similar to the concerns identified with Malaysia’s AFNA, this law contained vague and overbroad provisions and lacked adequate oversight, redress and accountability mechanisms. Vague and overbroad provisions prevent precise understanding of the law to enable individuals to regulate their conduct accordingly, in contravention of the general principle of legality. The Act, brought into force to “prevent the electronic communication of false statements of fact”, fails to provide a sufficient definition of “false statement of fact” under section 2, which allows for potentially any form of communication – written, visual, audio or otherwise – to be targeted under the law.452 Section 7 criminalizes the communication of any “false statement of fact” where such communication is likely to “be prejudicial to the security of Singapore, to public health, public safety, public tranquility”, “influence the outcome of an election”, “incite feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will” or “diminish public confidence in the performance of any duty or function of, or in the exercise of any power by, the Government, an Organ of State, a statutory board.”, This provision fails to define or circumscribe the categories “public safety”, “public tranquility” and “public interest”.453 Wide-ranging discretion is also conferred on ministers and government authorities under the POFMA in their administration of the Act and there are insufficient independent oversight measures to protect against arbitrary or abusive implementation. Parts 3 to 7 of the POFMA provide for powers granted to ministers to “correct” or “stop” the circulation of an alleged “false statement of fact”, and to order internet intermediaries to “block” or “disable” access to online locations or “disallow” its services from being used to disseminate Govt decisions’, The Straits Times, 30 April 2019, Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/ politics/nmps-suggest-four-amendments-to-draft-fake-news-law-including-having-independentcouncil-to?fbclid=IwAR1T1l5yxVd4XLqbyjMpWYcWZlTdnxxJPgGuZss83TRw5IRr36yYuwrMPvs; Johannes Tjendro, ‘Academics raise concerns on proposed online falsehoods laws; MOE assures research unaffected’, Channel News Asia, Available at: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/ singapore/academics-raise-concerns-on-proposed-online-falsehoods-laws-moe-11446818 451 The ICJ did not receive a response to the letter. See ICJ, ‘Singapore: ICJ calls on government not to adopt online regulation bill in current form’, 12 April 2019, Available at: https://www.icj.org/ singapore-icj-calls-on-government-not-to-adopt-online-regulation-bill-in-current-form/ 452 Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019, Bill No. 10/2019 (‘POFMA’), Available at: https://www.parliament.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/ protection-from-online-falsehoods-and-manipulation-bill10-2019.pdf; See ICJ, ‘Legal Briefing: Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill No. 10/2019’, 12 April 2019 (‘ICJ Legal Briefing’), p. 4, Available at: https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Singapore-onlineregulation-bill-briefing-advocacy-open-letter-2019-ENG.pdf 453 ICJ Legal Briefing, p. 5.