POFMA Explained: Correction and Stop Communication Directions

POFMA is one of the most searched pieces of Singapore legislation, and much of what is written about it is opinion rather than an account of how the Act actually works. This guide sets out the mechanism as enacted: the two main directions, who issues them, how to challenge one, and how POFMA differs from a defamation claim. It states the law neutrally and does not take a position on the policy.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate and solicitor about your situation.

Information last verified on 22 July 2026. This page provides general legal information about Singapore law and is not legal advice in an individual case.

What POFMA is

The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 gives the Government tools to respond to online falsehoods. Its core mechanism is a set of directions that a Minister may issue when a false statement of fact has been communicated in Singapore and the Minister is of the opinion that issuing the direction is in the public interest.

Two features define the regime. The trigger is a false statement of fact, not an opinion, and the basis is the public interest rather than harm to any private person's reputation. Those two features are what distinguish POFMA from the private law of defamation, discussed below.

Correction Directions and Stop Communication Directions

The two directions people encounter most are both Part 3 Directions under the Act.

A Correction Direction requires the person who communicated the statement to carry a correction notice alongside it, or to communicate a correction notice to the people who saw the statement. It does not require the original statement to be removed. The statement can remain up, accompanied by the correction.

A Stop Communication Direction goes further. It requires the person to stop communicating the statement in Singapore, which in practice means taking it down or otherwise ceasing to publish it. Both directions are issued by a Minister and are administered through the POFMA Office, which is the Competent Authority under the Act.

How to challenge a direction

The Act sets out a specific two-stage path for challenging a Part 3 Direction, and the order is mandatory.

The first stage is an application to the Minister. Under s 17(2), no appeal may be made to the General Division of the High Court unless the person has first applied to the Minister to vary or cancel the direction and the Minister has refused the application, whether in whole or in part. Applying to the Minister first is therefore a hard statutory precondition to going to court, not merely recommended practice.

The second stage is the appeal itself. Under s 17(1), the appeal lies to the General Division of the High Court. Section 17(3) provides that an appeal may only be made within the period prescribed by the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court states on its POFMA appeals page that the appeal must be filed within 14 days after the Minister's decision to refuse the application. The 14 day figure comes from the Rules of Court rather than from the words of the Act itself.

The three grounds and what they do not include

The High Court's power to set aside a Part 3 Direction is deliberately narrow. Under s 17(5), the court may set a direction aside on only three grounds:

• the person did not communicate in Singapore the subject statement;
• the subject statement is not a statement of fact, or is a true statement of fact; or
• it is not technically possible to comply with the direction.

Those are the only grounds. The second of them is the one that puts the truth or falsity of the statement before the court, and it places the question of whether the statement is a statement of fact, and whether it is true, squarely in issue on appeal.

Two further points follow from the text. Under s 17(6), the direction remains in effect while the appeal is pending, so lodging an appeal does not suspend the obligation to comply in the meantime. The Supreme Court also notes that the Minister's own decision on a variation or cancellation application is expected within a short period after the application is received.

POFMA compared with defamation

POFMA and defamation are often mentioned together, but they are separate legal tracks that answer different questions.

POFMA is a public-interest correction mechanism. A direction is issued by a Minister, the trigger is a false statement of fact communicated in Singapore against the public interest, no finding of harm to any individual's reputation is required, and the remedy is a correction or a stop-communication order rather than money.

Defamation is a private reputational tort. It is brought by an individual claimant who says their reputation has been harmed, it is decided by a court rather than a Minister, and its remedy is damages, and sometimes an injunction. The two can in principle apply to the same statement as independent tracks, but they are procedurally and substantively distinct. The separate law of civil defamation is summarised in the Singapore entry in the world defamation survey.

Where to go next

For how Singapore's data protection regime works, which is a separate matter from POFMA, see the data protection and the PDPA section page and the how to make a complaint to the PDPC guide. The wider legal map for the jurisdiction is on the Singapore law overview.