Curtailing Free Expression, Opinion and Information Online in Southeast Asia alleged “false statements of fact”. Government authorities can also control the flow of information through digital advertising or internet intermediaries through “codes of practice” which “give prominence to credible sources of information”.454 The first stage of recourse available to an aggrieved party is ministerial review of a direction or order made under the law – by the minister who made the order in question in the first place, raising concerns regarding the independence of such review and, concomitantly, the right of aggrieved parties to prompt and effective remedy, including judicial remedy.455 The law also fails to provide clear protections for freedom of expression and information or include exceptions or defences, including the defences of public interest, honest mistake, parody and/or artistic merit. There is no recourse available for a direction or order made under the bill to be quashed on judicial review grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.456 A range of imprisonment terms and hefty fines may be imposed under the POFMA as penalties for alleged “false statement of fact”, a category that can be interpreted in an overbroad manner to, for example, include individuals or nonindividuals who ‘like’, ‘share’ or ‘comment’ on such information on social media. In addition, intermediaries facilitating communication of such statement may also be held liable. This can result in a chilling effect on the free communication of opinions or other information, particularly in the context of discussions about matters of public interest and concern. Penalties include up to S$100,000 (approx. USD 73,000) or ten years’ imprisonment or both for individuals and fines of up to S$1 million (approx. USD 730,000) for non-individuals, and continuing fines of up to S$100,000 per day (approx. USD 73,000) or part of day of a “continuing offence”, where “part of day” is not clearly defined, can be imposed on parties deemed to have violated the law.457 As with Malaysia’s AFNA, the POFMA allows for extra-territorial application of penalties on individuals or non-individuals “whether in or outside of Singapore”, inconsistent with obligations to protect free expression and information “regardless of frontiers” and which can violate the rights of persons not only in Singapore but also outside of Singapore.458 454 455 456 457 458 POFMA, sections 48(2)(b), 48(2)(c). ICJ Legal Briefing, pp. 6, 7. ICJ Legal Briefing, pp. 11, 12. ICJ Legal Briefing, pp. 8 to 11. ICJ Legal Briefing, pp. 12, 13. 121