Online safety or censorship? Malaysia’s parliament passes two contentious media bills
Authorities insist that the reforms will make it easier to arrest cybercriminals
Originally published on Global Voices
Groups press for media freedom as parliament approves two bills that critics fear would restrict free speech in the country. Photo by Sairien Nafis/Fourth For The Fourth. Source: Center for Independent Journalism. Used with permission.
The Malaysian parliament passed the Online Safety Bill and a measure amending the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA) amid concerns from civil society groups that these would stifle free speech in the country.
In a joint statement, various rights groups expressed concern that the CMA amendments would expand the powers of the Malaysian Communication and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) “to decide what kind of content is to be online and removed” and “to compel service providers to provide user data” without a judicial order. They added that it would allow the MCMC and its authorized officers to enter premises and conduct search and seizure without a warrant, thereby eroding privacy rights and freedoms in Malaysia.
Media freedom advocates such as the Center for Independent Journalism and ARTICLE 19 have pointed out that the CMA has been notoriously used by authorities to harass critics and the press. During the 2022 elections, the incumbent Madani government even ran on a platform of reforming repressive laws, including the CMA, as part of its commitment to uphold freedom of expression.
Over the past year, the Malaysian government made some strides in this commitment, first by engaging stakeholders in a proposal to legislate the right to information and then by establishing a Media Council to increase transparency around media oversight. However, the state also drew criticism for its continued reliance on the weaponization of laws to silence critical voices. It also introduced the licensing regulation of social media platforms amid concerns about platforms’ detrimental impact on the internet.
Zaid Malek, director of Lawyers for Liberty, warned that the CMA amendments would make the “draconian law even more onerous.” He warned that the provisions against “fake news” could have a chilling effect and that some of the vague language in the bill could allow for sweeping abuse.
The inclusion of ‘confusion’ and ‘incomplete’ in the definition of falsehood here massively widens the offence. It will put fear upon the public and prevent them from participating in discussions regarding matters of public interest.
It would mean that allegations of corruption, abuse of power or general criticisms of the government cannot take place unless the public have the complete and full facts of every aspect of any matter or allegation.
The government said the law will only apply to “grossly offensive” content, and argued that this criteria should be sufficient in preventing abuse, but activists disagree. Lawyer Sin Yew debunked the government's argument and said it would not prevent the law from being misused. He added:
Regulating civility of discourse over the internet is not a recognised ground for restriction of freedom of speech and expression and would not be a legitimate aim.
The Government wrongly assumes that society has a uniform standard in determining what is grossly offensive. What is grossly offensive to a particular person may not be for others. Who is to be the ultimate arbiter? The proposed amendments do nothing to improve this.
MCMC already controls the online space — deciding what’s ‘sensitive’ and censoring without oversight. New amendments will only deepen this unaccountable power. If there is a body regulating the Internet, it must be independent from politics. #AktaSakitHati #Repeal233 pic.twitter.com/OpblAsKA7Z
— ARTICLE 19 (Malaysia) (@Article19Msia) December 8, 2024
But Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil insisted that the amendments would no longer criminalize satire or parody.
From now on, satire and parody will no longer automatically be considered crimes. This means satire and parody are not crimes, but they still have their limits.
He added that the measure enhances protection for online users, especially women and children.
Those involved in selling pornography and paedophiles who possess materials depicting sexual crimes against children destroy the society.
These amendments ensure the police can apprehend these criminals effectively.
However, critics of the measure reminded legislators that there are already existing laws that can adequately address these concerns.
Various groups submitted a petition to the government aimed at opposing the bill. One of those who joined the gathering was an artist who was charged with violating the CMA in 2022 for a satirical social media post.
@kuasasiswa is also here to support the media having personally designed his placard!
Thanks Fahmi Reza pic.twitter.com/4JTW6Li0Eq
— Centre for Independent Journalism (@CIJ_Malaysia) December 4, 2024
The Online Safety Bill
After passing the CMA amendments, the Parliament approved the Online Safety Bill intended to make online service providers and social media platforms accountable. But civil society groups are worried that granting “excessive powers” to the MCMC to monitor “harmful content” could infringe on user privacy and freedom of expression. ARTICLE 19 said:
This will likely result in increased ‘lawful content’ being taken down from the internet. We also see a risk that this opens the door for the government to exploit or manipulate companies’ content moderation systems to censor unwanted speech.
The Malaysian chapter of Amnesty International added that “the failure to establish clear parameters can enable arbitrary applications of the law to illegitimately criminalize non-harmful content.”
Civil society groups recommended the following:
A better approach would prioritise the governance of online service providers, requiring them to protect human rights and empower users while ensuring transparent algorithms and safety features.
Establish an independent Online Safety Commission free from government interference as an effective regulatory body and accountability mechanism.
They also called out the government for prioritizing these controversial measures instead of fulfilling its earlier pledge to support free speech.
These measures risk transforming Malaysia’s digital spaces into stricter and highly regulated environments, stifling open discourse and innovation while entrenching state control over the internet. These developments also further exemplify the ongoing pattern of the government diluting public participation in due processes as meaningful consultation was sparse and superficial.
The two measures passed by the Parliament have yet to be scheduled for deliberation at Malaysia's Dewan Negara (Senate).