The utilization of POFMA, legislation that allows government officials to punish news media that do not abide by its rules and restrictions, adds to numerous other media restrictions set in place by Singapore’s Government. 

Although the PAP’s electoral and legislative structure permits some political pluralism, it restricts the expansion of opposition parties and curtails the rights to free speech, assembly, and association. PAP, also known as the People’s Action Party, has remained in power throughout most of Singapore’s history, remaining restrictive of the media and its content. Recently, the development of a new law has continued to grant Singapore government officials power over the news media. The Protection against Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, also known as POFMA, is legislation permitting a single government minister to declare that information posted online is false and to order the content’s correction or removal if deemed to be in the public interest. This law has been utilized numerous times for the PAP Party’s benefit, rather than for its intended use of protecting citizens from false media. 

POFMA was first enacted in 2019, though it was recently scrutinized by the public and news sources due to it shuttingdown a news source, Asia Sentinel, in the summer of 2023. Asia Sentinel, according to Singapore government officials, violated POFMA after publishing an article stating that, “authorities were harassing and intimidating political dissenters”, which they claimed to be false. After issuing a notice to inform Asia Sentinel that they had to correct their statements, Asia Sentinel instead published the notice and stated that they stood by their original claims. The act of Singapore’s government to block connections to their website is a clear violation of international human rights standards. In utilizing legislation to create an image of protecting citizens, when truly silencing opposing news media, this act has numerous avenues in creating democratic erosion within Singapore. 

Government officials can strategize with the media differently, one being attempting to influence public opinion through intimidation or restrictions on the media. Removing access to Asia Sentinel through provisions of POFMA legislation showcases an attempt to shape public opinion, as the article defamed the government by stating they were utilizing intimidation techniques. Furthermore, Daniel Bastard, head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk, is quoted as having said, “By censoring Asia Sentinel in such a blatant manner, Singapore’s government has revealed its true face, it has shown that it wants to act as a Ministry of Truth, accepting no criticism and tolerating only courtier journalism.” The image of honesty that the Singapore Government attempts to portray is false, as they assert the law is present to counteract fake news and protect public knowledge, however, examples of blocking news media such as Asia Sentinel show ulterior motives. This legislation limits content, contributing to an eroding democracy.

Singapore’s government has been controlled by the same party almost entirely since gaining independence and has actively created legislation to assume control of the media throughout the years. Though they do this discreetly, they use measures that are not discrete as well. Creating laws for this purpose could be analyzed as being worse for democracy, seeing as it is blatant and not an example of stealth authoritarianism. Ways of stealthy democratic erosion are incumbent politicians suing journalists for libel rather than imprisoning them or closing down media businesses. In contrast, POFMA publicly shuts its media outlets, showing little regard for stealthiness or protecting itself from public opinion. Furthermore, POFMA has been used to harass critics, while there are restrictions on peaceful assembly under the 2009 Public Order Act (POA). Though the event is an example of the legislation being utilized to unfairly shut down media in favor of public opinion on the government, the legislation itself has been used in undemocratic ways. This could be a possible instance of stealth authoritarianism as it directly attacks the journalists in opposition, something that stealth authoritarianism covers.

The act of shutting down Asia Sentinel contributes to democratic erosion and stems from an unjustifiable piece of legislation. In light of similar events occurring in other nations, it is likely that Singapore will follow suit in developing even larger media restrictions. For example, by putting pressure on independent media outlets that had previously criticized the government, Putin’s Kremlin silenced some of them. By 2003, it had taken over the last independent television network and replaced it with a sports channel. Throughout the decade, press freedom continued to deteriorate. As POFMA and Asia Sentinel are some of the many instances of media suppression in Singapore, this mechanism of erosion will likely continue through the coming years. 

Analyzing the bluntness of media laws and blocking of media sites that are put forth by Singapore government officials, along with the fact that it has been shown to become an even larger issue, Singapore’s citizens face a government of media erosion.