In the Maldives today, the spread of fake news is no longer an occasional nuisance; it has become part of the daily information landscape. False political statements, doctored videos, and fabricated letters all circulate not just in isolated corners of social media, but often on mainstream news platforms as well. From election-related rumors to conspiracy theories about national security or health matters, information is influencing public opinion and distorting political discourse in ways we can no longer afford to ignore.
So far, the national response has been piecemeal at best. The Maldives Media Council has issued warnings. Regulatory bodies have placed fines on unregistered websites. Yet, there is no consistent or transparent framework that allows the public to trust that falsehoods are being corrected in a timely, fair, and legally sound manner. In the absence of such a system, unverified stories fill the vacuum.
The scale of the challenge demands a smarter, more structured approach. One country that offers an example, both in its successes and in the debates it has sparked, is Singapore. Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, commonly known as POFMA, was introduced in 2019. While it has not been without controversies, the law represents a deliberate attempt to balance speed, public trust, and the protection of civil liberties in dealing with online falsehoods.
What sets POFMA apart from older models of censorship is its focus on correction over removal. Rather than simply deleting content or blocking access, Singapore’s law allows government ministers to issue orders requiring a correction notice to appear alongside the disputed content. In other words, the public is shown both the original statement and the government’s clarification, giving them the information they need to make their own judgement.
This process is not left unchecked. Singapore’s system includes legal safeguards: if a person or platform disagrees with the correction order, they have the right to appeal to the High Court. It is a process designed to be fast (not arbitrary) because misinformation spreads quickly.
For the Maldives, the idea is not to replicate Singapore’s system word for word. Our media environment is smaller, our society more tightly interconnected, and our democratic institutions at a different stage of development. But some core lessons are clearly applicable.
First, the Maldives needs a clear legal framework specifically addressing online falsehoods. At present, misinformation is dealt with under general media regulations which is not equipped to handle the speed and scale of online content. A tailored law would define what constitutes a falsehood, what actions can be taken, and under what conditions. Crucially, it would separate misinformation from legitimate political speech and opinion.
Second, the priority must be on correcting the record, not silencing it. Removing content can fuel distrust, especially in a politically divided society. A system of correction notices, visible to the public, would allow falsehoods to be countered without erasing the conversation entirely. This also helps build media literacy over time, teaching people to check sources rather than simply accepting or rejecting information based on political lines.
Third, any such system must include due process and transparency. Without independent avenues for appeal, such as through courts, there is a risk of misuse. Transparency mechanisms such as publishing all correction orders on a central website would further reinforce public confidence that the system is not being used selectively or unfairly.
Some may argue that introducing laws like these carries political risks. In a polarized environment, any new power can be viewed with suspicion. But leaving misinformation unchecked carries even greater dangers. It undermines public trust not only in the media but in democratic processes themselves. Over time, it can make reasonable debate all but impossible.
Singapore’s experience shows that it is possible to act decisively against fake news without abandoning the principles of transparency and public trust. For the Maldives, the choice is clear; either continue to let misinformation shape public life unchecked or develop a structured, fair, and transparent way of addressing it.
This is not about silencing opinions. It is about protecting facts. And in a small, tightly woven society like ours, that may be the difference between an informed democracy, and one built on rumour and doubt.
