SINGAPORE: On 30 April 2025, the Ministry of Digital Development and Information (MDDI) confirmed that three articles published by the Singapore-based digital magazine Jom were blocked for local users on Facebook and Instagram.
The action, carried out by Meta, followed a directive issued by the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) on 23 April.
It came amid concerns that the articles constituted unauthorised third-party paid Online Election Advertising (OEA) during the general election period.
Jom, which describes itself as an independent magazine covering culture, politics, and society in Singapore, had promoted these articles through paid advertisements on Meta’s platforms.
According to MDDI, the three articles in question were titled:
- Is Shan a good bad cop?
- The system has stopped evolving: why Harpreet Singh joined the opposition
- Affordability in the lion city: is Singapore’s public housing model built to last?
These pieces, which either praised or criticised political figures and policies, were deemed to meet the legal definition of OEA under the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA).
The PEA defines OEA as any online material that could reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or prejudice the electoral success or standing of a political party or candidate, regardless of other intended purposes.
Singapore law permits only political parties, candidates, election agents, and authorised third parties to publish paid OEA. Such activities must also be declared to the returning officer.
MDDI stressed that these rules are in place to ensure accountability and prevent circumvention of election expense limits.
Unpaid OEA remains legal outside the campaign cooling-off period, which runs from midnight on 2 May until polling closes on 3 May.
In response to media queries, MDDI reiterated that unpaid OEA on Jom’s website remains accessible. The ministry noted that other online commentators had complied with these rules.
Jom contests classification of journalism as political advertising
Jom expressed strong disagreement with the government’s classification.
In statements issued on its social media platforms, the publication said it had only sought to promote journalism to new readers through standard digital marketing practices.
Jom called the order “shocking” and argued that its content was not designed to influence voter behaviour, but to inform and analyse, as journalistic work typically does.
“Our work was never ‘intended’ to promote or prejudice anybody, but simply to analyse and report,” Jom said.
The magazine specifically cited the housing article, noting that it was first published 18 months ago.
It contended that describing public policies from multiple perspectives should not be viewed as electioneering.
Jom reported that, after consulting legal counsel, it contacted IMDA via the designated email for election-related issues, requesting clarification within 48 hours due to the urgency of the situation.
The agency responded on 29 April, stating that Jom had contravened section 61K(1) of the PEA. Jom said it was not provided with further substantive clarification.
Additionally, the outlet revealed that a fourth article, Inequality and your vote, had also been restricted from promotion on Meta, though this was not mentioned in the government’s initial announcement.
Concerns over press freedom, competition, and public discourse
Jom raised concerns about what it views as broader implications for press freedom, democratic engagement, and competition in Singapore’s media landscape.
“This order undermines our integrity as journalists,” the publication stated, arguing that it was being unfairly penalised while state-affiliated platforms and influencers operated without similar constraints.
It also noted that the ruling hinders the viability of small media firms trying to build readership through legitimate digital channels.
“Our ability to grow our readership and business through social media is vital,” Jom said. “Far from nurturing media entrepreneurs, IMDA cripples us.”
Meta defines boosted posts as advertisements and requires them to follow applicable advertising laws. According to the platform, even if a post is originally published as standard content, paying to increase its reach classifies it as an ad.
This distinction played a key role in the enforcement of Singapore’s election laws in this case.
Jom acknowledged that the order only barred the promotion of its articles on Meta, and that the content remains freely accessible on its own website.
Jom questioned whether the decision was a bureaucratic misstep or a politically motivated move aimed at silencing independent commentary during the election season.
“Are [readers] only supposed to hear mainstream media and PAP-influencer views?” Jom asked.
Despite the controversy, Jom stated its commitment to continue reporting on Singapore’s general election and other pressing national issues.
“We will not succumb,” the statement read. “We will continue to do our honest work.”
The post Singapore blocks Jom articles on Meta over election ad rules, citing unauthorised paid promotion appeared first on The Online Citizen.
