Media
Statement – 4/3/2023
Respect People’s Right to Privacy, Freedom of Expression - Repeal Section
233 and other rights violating provisions in the Communications and Multimedia
Act 1998(CMA)
Suspect’s right to be informed and to be heard must be respected before
online services are 'blocked' by State
The continued use of the
draconian Section 233 Communications and Multimedia Act 1998(CMA) by Malaysian
government under Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim is appalling. News that the
government will review this section is welcomed, but MADPET (Malaysians Against
Death Penalty and Torture) calls for the repeal
of Section 233 and all anti-human rights provisions in CMA.
Despite the long-standing call of
the Malaysian Bar (also vide a Bar Resolution passed at the AGM in 2016 attended
by over 1,000 lawyers), SUHAKAM (Malaysian Human Rights Commission), civil
society groups and others for the repeal of this law, this PH-led government is
still using this law.
The Bar in a statement December
2015 said, amongst others that ‘…Section 233(1)(a) of the CMA is a serious encroachment on the freedom of
speech and expression guaranteed by Article 10(1)(a) of our Federal
Constitution. …Section 233(1)(a) of the CMA is also repugnant to the rule of law, as it is broad in scope, vague and
ambiguous, with entirely subjective terms such as “offensive” and “annoy”. It can easily be misused to stifle speech and expression, to shut out contrary
views, to quash dissent, to deny democratic space, and to suppress
Malaysians. It is this imprecision that
gives rise to the perception that the provision is yet another dressed–up
political weapon in the armoury of the Government…’
Section 233 criminalizes the
publication and dissemination online of communication that is ‘…obscene,
indecent, false, menacing or offensive in
character with intent to annoy, abuse,
threaten or harass another person…’ It is just too broad and vague, and is
open to abuse. For example, the highlighting of violation of human rights or
laws, or facts connected to alleged violations of rights/laws, would likely
‘annoy’ or even ‘harass’ the wrongdoer, and for the alleged wrongdoer, it could
also be said to be ‘menacing and offensive’. This should never be considered an
offence.
As such, this section deters even
the highlighting of human rights abuses, breaches of law and even possible
government wrongdoing. A criticism of a statement of a Minister or anyone that
is in the wrong can also be alleged to be false, menacing, annoying or even harassment.
In 2022, the Centre for
Independent Journalism documented 114
cases where Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act was used to
investigate netizens and human rights defenders.
CMA has also infringed press freedom,
and this also can violate people’s right to information. Two national
newspapers are being investigated by police for publishing news reports
insinuating that Chinese vernacular school students in the country are
reluctant to learn Bahasa Malaysia. This maybe just an opinion of some, so why
the investigation at all.
Blocking access without owner-user knowing – section 263
Another draconian provision is
Section 263, whereby Section 263(2) states, ‘(2) A licensee shall, upon written
request by the Commission[Malaysian Communications and Multimedia
Commission(MCMC)] or any other authority, assist the Commission or other
authority as far as reasonably necessary in preventing the commission or attempted commission of an
offence under any written law of Malaysia or otherwise in enforcing the laws of
Malaysia, including, but not limited to, the protection of the public revenue
and preservation of national security.’ A ‘.."licensee" means a
person who either holds an individual licence, or undertakes activities which
are subject to a class licence, granted under this Act;..’.
This means access to your blog,
website, Facebook, email, etc can be blocked by the licensee or service
providers on the request of the MCMC, who simply have to send a written
request.
What is worse is that you may not know WHY this happened, and who is
responsible for this ‘censorship’ and deprivation of your right to
communicate with others? Worse, this ‘censorship’, interference, blocking of access
and even closure of account of your online facilities of communication can even
happen before any alleged crime is committed. One may end up wrongly blaming
service providers and social media applications, when the truth may be that it
was the government that is responsible.
If blog/website or any social
media facility access is to be blocked, the suspect of the alleged crime must
be immediately informed by MCMC or the
relevant authorities, and accorded the right to challenge that decision.
Note that all the police or MCMC
can do is allege or suspect that a crime has been committed, for it is only the
court, after a fair trial, that determines whether an offence has been
committed or not. Hence, premature punishment
by blocking access to internet facilities must end, as punishment ought to
come after the court decides on the guilt.
Spying on us – Section 252, 265 …
How many people’s communication
online are being intercepted and listened to using CMA? The people’s right to
privacy must be respected and acknowledged.
Section 252 CMA ‘…. authorise the
officer to intercept or to listen to
any communication transmitted or received by any communications….’ . CMA says, "interception capability"
means the capability of any network facilities or network service or
applications service to intercept communications under section 265;
All that is needed now is the
authorization of the Public Prosecutor, and MADPET believes that it is better
that the requirement be a Court order made by a Judge, who will have to
consider our right to privacy before allowing for any such ‘spying’.
Section 265(1) states, ‘The
Minister may determine that a licensee or class of licensees shall implement the capability to allow authorised
interception of communications…’
CMA needs a total review, and all
draconian provisions that violates our human rights must be forthwith repealed
MADPET (Malaysians Against Death
Penalty and Torture) calls for the immediate repeal of section 233, 263, 252,
265 and other draconian provisions in the Communications and Multimedia Act
1998(CMA);
MADPET calls for an immediate stay in the usage of Section 233 and all draconian
provisions of the CMA pending repeal;
MADPET calls for respect and acknowledgement of a persons right to
privacy, and to insert this right in the Constitution or relevant laws;
MADPET calls for press freedom, and for the government to ‘end’ trying
to scare or ‘control’ journalists and media outlets from reporting and/or
delivering information, including critical opinions, to the Malaysian public.
Freedom of speech, expression and
opinion must be respected. If there is some ‘fake’ or ‘misleading’ information
online, the government should speedily correct or clarify rather than
prosecuting the author and those who shared it online. The government must
acknowledge the right of people to express opinions different from that of the
government of the day, the police or MCMC.
Charles Hector
For and on behalf of MADPET (Malaysians
Against Death Penalty and Torture)
see:-
Resolution on Internet Censorship, The Malaysian Insider, and Freedom of Expression and Opinion
Whereas:
1. The access to the website of alternative online media, The Malaysian Insider, have been denied to Malaysians by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (“MCMC”).
2. A
visit to the said website will disclose, amongst others, the following
statement: “Access to this site has been denied under Section 263(2)
Communications And Multimedia Act 1998 as it violates the following
Malaysian law: … Breached provision section 233 Communications and Multimedia Act 1998.”
3. In
the case of the Malaysian Chronicle website, another alternative media
outlet, all that one sees is ‘This website is not available in Malaysia as it violate(s) the National law(s).’ – there is no mention of even what laws have been breached and under what provision is the site blocked.
4. A
statement in Bahasa Malaysia dated 25/2/2016, which did not even
indicate the name of the person who issued the statement, in the
Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) website,
confirms that it is the MCMC that blocked the The Malaysian Insider
website.
MCMC SEKAT LAMAN THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER
CYBERJAYA,
25 Februari 2016 --- Suruhanjaya Komunikasi dan Multimedia Malaysia
(MCMC) telah menyekat laman The Malaysian Insider ekoran tindakan portal
berkenaan yang telah mengeluarkan kandungan-kandungan yang menjurus
kepada kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 233, Akta Komunikasi dan Multimedia
1998.
Sekatan tersebut juga dilakukan oleh MCMC berdasarkan aduan-aduan dan maklumat yang diterima daripada orang ramai.
Sehubungan
itu, MCMC memperingatkan portal-portal berita agar tidak menyebarkan
atau menyiarkan artikel-artikel yang tidak ditentukan kesahihannya. Ini
kerana, tindakan sedemikian boleh mengundang kekeliruan dan mencetuskan
situasi yang tidak diingini.
5. The reason seems that the said The Malaysian Insider
had published contents that amount to a violation of Section 233
Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. There are, however, no details
whatsoever, as to what the alleged violation was – no mention of date
and time, no mention of which particular report, and no mention of the
particulars of the statements that allegedly were in breach of section
233. Section 233(1) and (2), which contains the offence is as follows:
233 Improper use of network facilities or network service, etc
(a) by means of any network facilities or network service or applications service knowingly-
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion or other communication which is obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person; or
(b)
initiates a communication using any applications service, whether
continuously, repeatedly or otherwise, during which communication may or
may not ensue, with or without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person at any number or electronic address,
(2) A person who knowingly-
(a) by means of a network service or applications service provides any obscene communication for commercial purposes to any person; or
(b)
permits a network service or applications service under the person's
control to be used for an activity described in paragraph (a),
6. A
perusal of section 233(1) will see that it is just too broad and vague,
and is open to abuse. For example, the highlighting of violation of
human rights or laws, or facts connected to alleged violations of
rights/laws, would likely ‘annoy’ or even ‘harass’ the wrongdoer, and
for the alleged wrongdoer, it could also be said to be ‘menacing and
offensive’. This should never be considered an offence.
7. As
such, this section deters even the highlighting of human rights abuses,
breaches of law and even possible government wrongdoing. This section
even deters the sharing of such relevant and important facts, and/or
opinions over the internet.
8. Section 233(1), together with section 263(2), violates even the very assurance provided for in Section 3(3), which states ‘Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting the censorship of the Internet.’ The blocking of access to websites like The Malaysian Insider, could hardly be said to be not ‘censoring the internet’.
9. Section 263(2) states, ‘(2)
A licensee shall, upon written request by the Commission or any other
authority, assist the Commission or other authority as far as reasonably
necessary in preventing the commission or attempted commission of an offence under any written law of Malaysia or otherwise in enforcing the laws of Malaysia, including, but not limited to, the protection of the public revenue and preservation of national security.’
10. The
wordings of section 263(2) suggest the ability to block website/s or
website access (and/or ‘censor) for the purpose of preventing a possible
offence or an attempt to commit an offence – as such, it is akin to a
‘preventive detention’ law like our former Internal Security Act (ISA).
This means websites blogs and other social media can be pre-maturely
blocked even before any crime has been committed. Was the The Malaysian Insider website access blocked because there was some ‘suspicion’ that The Malaysian Insider may breach some law in the future?
11. We
remind ourselves of the legal principle that is the ‘presumption of
innocence until proven guilty. No one can be said to have breached any
law until the court, after a trial, determines whether one is guilty or
not. No administrative authority and/or executive body can arbitrarily
determine whether one has breached the law or not – all they can do is
allege for it is the courts that determine whether a law is breached or
not.
12. The
other use of section 263(2) is for the enforcing of the laws in
Malaysia – and, the question is which law is it enforcing, and does the
said law allow the blocking of access to the internet or any particular
website, remembering the guarantee that there will be no ‘censoring of
the internet’.
13. What
makes it even more dangerous is that, unlike the draconian ISA and
Detention Without Trial laws, which requires a Minister’s order, here
all that is required is not even an order but merely a ‘written request
by the Commission or any other authority’ – this is unacceptable.
14. An
ISA detention order by a Minister could be subject to judicial review,
but here under section 263(2), we only have a ‘written request’, that
too directed to the licensee, which seems to be the internet service
providers, not even the affected website like The Malaysian Insider,
making it even more difficult to appeal. Hence, the victim may be
deeply prejudiced – not having the ability to appeal to higher
authorities, let alone proceed with a judicial review.
15. In
Malaysia, when a person is deprived of his rights or freedoms, like in
an arrest, the enforcement authority only can hold him/her for 24 hours,
and for further detention a court remand order is required.
16. However,
in this case of ‘blocking access to internet websites’, which we now
know can last indefinitely, there is no requirement for any court order,
and as such this is grossly unjust.
17. In the case of The Malaysian Insider, there were also no material particulars as to which the ‘offending’ article was, and what was wrong with it.
18. Even
if there was some offending report, reasonable would have been blocking
access to the particular report/article – not the blocking of the
entire media website.
19. In
Parliament, the Deputy Communications and Multimedia Minister Datuk
Jailani Johari ‘…said the government had on January 19 formed a special
committee to monitor the use of the internet and social media platforms,
with the panel chaired by minister Datuk Seri Salleh Said Keruak and
comprising representatives from his ministry, the Malaysian
Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC), the police and the
Attorney-General Chambers….to ensure stern action on those using social
media to plant hate against government institutions and prevent social
media from becoming the cause of the incitement of discord through the
propagation of lies, hatred and religious extremism…’(Malay Mail,
8/3/2016)
20. In
the said report, it also disclosed that since January 19 until
February, ‘the MCMC has probed 22 cases of internet misuse and blocked a
total of 399 websites.’ The law does not give the MCMC the specific
power to block access to websites.
21. No
material particulars were given as to which websites have been blocked
and for what specific reason they were blocked. One could not find even
on the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) website
a listing of the websites blocked, and the reasons for the blocking of
access. Hence, not only are the owner/s of the said websites deeply
prejudiced, but also we who do not want internet censorship.
22. Even
if was a pornographic or gambling website, there must be a requirement
for a court order for the blocking of access. It should be noted that
now many local and foreign media websites, websites/blogs of individuals
and civil society organisations are also being blocked arbitrarily. In
all cases, the owners of the website must be given due notice and the
opportunity to be heard.
23. The
Malaysian Bar, in its 1/3/2016 statement, amongst others, said: ‘…The
right to information, or the right to know, is implicit in the guarantee
of freedom of speech and expression that belongs to every citizen, as
enshrined in Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution. Indeed, a
true democracy envisages a meaningful right to know…. The blocking of
access to websites is a serious curtailment of the right to know, as it
thwarts the flow or dissemination of information, thoughts and ideas.
This renders the constitutional guarantee in Article 10(1)(a) vacuous
or meaningless… Further, a critical and complementary aspect of the
fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression is contained in
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right
includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers.”
THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved that:
A. That
we, the Members of the Malaysian Bar, and the Malaysian Bar, call on
the Malaysian government to stop censorship of the internet.
B. That
we, the Members of the Malaysian Bar, and the Malaysian Bar, call for
immediate unblocking and restoring internet access to The Malaysian Insider, Malaysian Chronicle and all such media sites and blogs that publish information, opinions and views.
C. That
we, the Malaysian Bar calls for the repeal of section 263, section 233
and such vague provisions in the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998.
D. That
the Malaysian Bar calls for the repeal of all such laws that allow for
the deprivation of human rights and freedoms by executive and/or
administrative authorities, without the necessary requirement of a court
order.
E. That
the Malaysian Bar review Malaysian laws, and highlight laws and/or
provisions therein that is contrary to international human rights
standards.
F. That the Malaysian Bar uphold the rule of law, including the right to be heard and a fair trial.
##Malaysian Bar’s 70th Annual General Meeting (“AGM”), held on 19 Mar
2016 at Renaissance Kuala Lumpur Hotel, which saw the attendance of a total of
1,110 Members, adopted the following Resolution
Press Release | Section 233(1)(a) of the
Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 Creates a Chilling Effect on
Freedom of Speech and Expression, and Should be Repealed
21 Dec 2015 5:06 pm
The Malaysian Bar is deeply
concerned over the use of Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and
Multimedia Act 1998 (“CMA”) which, among others, criminalises the use of
network facilities or network services by a person to transmit any
communication that is deemed to be offensive and could cause annoyance
to another person.
Section
233(3) of the CMA stipulates, upon conviction, the imposition of a
maximum fine of RM50,000 or a maximum one–year jail term or both, as
well as a further fine of RM1,000 for every day the offence is continued
after conviction.
Section 233(1)(a) has been frequently used, and recently against the following persons and entities:
(1) Radio
journalist Aisyah Tajuddin and two of her colleagues were investigated
on 23 March 2015 for her alleged appearance in a video posted online,
entitled “Hudud Isi Periuk Nasi? (Kupas)”;
(2) The Malaysian Insider
(“TMI”) managing editor Lionel Morais, Bahasa Malaysia news editor Amin
Shah Iskandar, and features and analysis editor Zulkifli Sulong were
arrested on 30 March 2015; and chief executive Jahabar Sadiq and group
CEO of The Edge Media Group (which owns TMI) Ho Kay Tat were arrested on
31 March 2015, for allegedly publishing a news report that claimed the
royal institution had opposed the amendment of the Federal Constitution
to enable hudud laws to be implemented;
(3) Whistleblower website Sarawak Report was
investigated, and access to it blocked, in July 2015 for allegedly
publishing unverified information relating to the Prime Minister and
1MDB;
(4) Political
analyst Shahbudin Husin was investigated on 29 September 2015 for
allegedly posting a comment piece entitled “Kenapa lawatan rasmi Zahid
ke Indonesia sama tarikh dengan majlis sanding anaknya di Jakarta?”;
(5) Former
Chief Minister of Malacca Tan Sri Abdul Rahim Thamby Chik was charged
on 5 October 2015 for allegedly posting an item on his Facebook account
concerning the Selangor Raja Muda;
(6) Parti
Sosialis Malaysia Secretary–General S Arutchelvan was charged on 23
November 2015 for allegedly criticising the Court of Appeal's decision
against then–Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, in a Facebook post;
(7) Activist
Khalid Mohd Ismath was charged on 13 November 2015 for making allegedly
seditious online posts regarding the Johor royalty;
(8) Former
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Dato’ Zaid Ibrahim was
charged on 3 December 2015 for the alleged offence of publishing the
transcript of a speech that he delivered at the Royal Selangor Club on
his blog. The blog post, entitled “Rally Behind Tun Dr Mahathir
Mohammad”, called for the removal of the Prime Minister; and
(9) “Letak
Jawatan” Facebook page administrator Joe Haidy Sulaiman was
investigated on 4 December 2015 for allegedly defaming the Prime
Minister in a Facebook post.
Section
233(1)(a) of the CMA is a serious encroachment on the freedom of speech
and expression guaranteed by Article 10(1)(a) of our Federal
Constitution. While Parliament may impose restrictions on this
fundamental constitutional liberty, such restrictions must be reasonable
and proportionate. The extremely wide and draconian effect of Section
233(1)(a) renders it an impermissible restriction, inasmuch as it unduly
negates the exercise of the right to speech and expression.
Section
233(1)(a) of the CMA is also repugnant to the rule of law, as it is
broad in scope, vague and ambiguous, with entirely subjective terms such
as “offensive” and “annoy”. It can easily be misused to stifle speech
and expression, to shut out contrary views, to quash dissent, to deny
democratic space, and to suppress Malaysians. It is this imprecision
that gives rise to the perception that the provision is yet another
dressed–up political weapon in the armoury of the Government.
In
any event, there can certainly be no basis for Section 233(1)(a) to be
invoked against any person who calls for the Prime Minister to step
down. It is absurd to criminalise the exercise of such a legitimate
democratic right. Peaceful change to the executive leadership of a
nation is part and parcel of democracy. The Prime Minister must accept
that the price for being in office includes constant scrutiny and
criticism, and this could include calls for him to resign.
The
continuous use of Section 233(1)(a) of the CMA to clamp down on views,
discourse and expression, and to restrict democratic space, creates a
climate of fear that threatens to silence Malaysians. Section 233
(1)(a) suffocates not only freedom of expression and freedom of speech
in Malaysia, but more critically, freedom of thought. In this age of
connectivity, where the exchange of ideas and information is rife, no
nation that aspires to be recognised and accepted as a world leader in
ideas and intellectualism can afford to raise an unquestioning and
non–discerning population.
The
Malaysian Bar therefore calls upon the Government to cease its use of
Section 233(1)(a) of the CMA, and to repeal Section 233 of the CMA. The
chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression that is created
by its use must be eliminated.
Steven Thiru
President
Malaysian Bar
Malaysia: Hasten reform of Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act
Activist Heidy Quah, 7 September 2022. https://www.facebook.com/heidy.quah
In 2022, the Centre for Independent Journalism documented
114 cases where Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act was
used to investigate netizens and human rights defenders.
This statement was originally published on cijmalaysia.net on 15 February 2023.
1. We are glad that the new government decided not to pursue the case
against Heidy Quah. It was reported yesterday that human rights
activist, Heidy Quah, was to be charged under Section 233 of the
Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA). The government however made a
sharp u-turn at the last minute and decided not to pursue the case.
2. This decision, we hope, foretells the government’s commitment in
not weaponising repressive laws to silence critics and curtail our
freedom of expression and speech. Human rights activists, such as Heidy
Quah, should not have been investigated and intimidated for speaking out
and critiquing government action.
3. The broad scope of Section 233 of the CMA allows it to be widely
used against human rights defenders and has become a tool of
intimidation and harassment by State apparatus in the recent years. Last
year alone we documented 114 cases where Section 233 of the CMA was
used to investigate netizens and human rights defenders for various
reasons. FOE Report 2022 can be accessed here
4. The government must always be open to scrutiny and constructive
criticism in fulfilling its mandate. In this regard, we call upon Fahmi
Fadzil as the new minister of Communications and Digital to hasten
reforms with regards to the CMA, and other laws which are used to
silence critics, specifically human rights defenders.
5. We need a State that lives up to the hopes of the Rakyat for an
unencumbered freedom of expression and speech, especially when it comes
to holding the government accountable.
15 February 2023
Wathshlah Naidu
CIJ Executive Director - Ifex Website
Govt to review Section 233 of Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 [NSTTV]
KUALA LUMPUR: The government plans to review the amendment of Section
233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 to ensure a smooth
investigation process for those charged for political purposes under the
Act.
Deputy Communications and Digital Minister Teo Nie Ching said the
review would also allow better data traffic maintenance for the
Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC).
"Only 67 per cent of the complaints we receive contain threatening content and another 58 per cent are obscene content.
"However, we are mulling the effort to review the Act to ensure that
the investigation aspect will be smooth and better data traffic
maintenance for MCMC.- NST, 1/3/2023
Police confirm NSTP dailies under investigation for claiming SJKC students not keen to learn BM 
Sentul
police chief Assistant Commissioner Beh Eng Lai confirmed that police
reports on the matter had been filed on January 21. ― Picture by Ahmad
Zamzahuri
By Zarrah Morden
Wednesday, 01 Feb 2023 3:07 PM MYT
KUALA
LUMPUR, Feb 1 — Two national newspapers are being investigated by
police for publishing news reports insinuating that Chinese vernacular
school students in the country are reluctant to learn Bahasa Malaysia.
The
English-language New Straits Times (NST) and the Malay-language Berita
Harian, both published by the New Straits Times Press Berhad (NSTP),
sparked uproar with Chinese Malaysian education groups accusing the two
dailies of sedition in their January 18 articles titled “SJKC pupils not
keen to learn BM” and “Murid SJKC tak minat subjek Bahasa Melayu?”
respectively.
Sentul police chief Assistant Commissioner Beh Eng Lai confirmed that police reports on the matter had been filed on January 21.
“We are investigating under Section 505(b) of the Penal Code and
Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998,” he told Malay Mail today when contacted.
Section
505(b) of the Penal Code deals with the publication of statements with
the intent to cause, or which are likely to cause, fear or alarm to the
public whereby a person may be induced to commit a crime against the
State or public peace.
If found guilty, punishment includes a jail term of up to two years, an unspecified fine, or both.
Section
233 of the CMA 1998 criminalises the use of network facilities or
network services by a person to transmit communication deemed offensive.
Those found guilty of this offence can be punished with a maximum fine of RM50,000, or a jail term of up to one year, or both.
Malaysian
Chinese Language Council (MCLC) president Datuk Eddie Heng Hong Chai
held a news conference here yesterday accusing the NST reporter of
misleading the public by making sweeping generalisations in the
published article about BM in vernacular schools nationwide.
He
claimed that the reporter had only interviewed two teachers who were
only sharing the difficulties their vernacular school students faced in
learning the national language, news portal Malaysiakini reported.
Heng
clarified that the vernacular school students were improving their BM
scores in recent years, with the average marks topping 90 per cent.
He added that MCLC had written to the news outlets but had yet to receive a response, Malaysiakini reported.-
Malay Mail, 1/2/2023
SUHAKAM has expressed concern at the actions of
police using specific laws against activists, politicians, journalists
and human rights defenders.
The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) wishes to
express its concerns on the actions by the police using specific laws
against activists, politicians, journalists and human rights defenders
for exercising their freedom of expression.
SUHAKAM is of the view
that the enjoyment of freedom of expression should only be restricted
as provided by the law to the extent necessary and proportionate to
achieve legitimate aims such as national security and public order.
Anyone exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression
should not be made to suffer or be fearful of retaliation or
intimidation.
Human Rights Commission of Malaysia
Restrictive laws which are essential for political stability,
racial harmony, and economic prosperity cannot be used as tools to
restrict any political contestation and people's mobilisation against
it.
SUHAKAM notes that Section 233 of the Communications and
Multimedia Act (CMA) and laws such as the Sedition Act 1948, the
Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 and Section 504 and 505 of the Penal Code and
The Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 (Sosma) are being
used to censor, intimidate, silence critics and curtail freedom of
expression and speech.
SUHAKAM is concerned with the ongoing use
of restrictive laws, which are not in line with human rights principles
as expounded in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR) and Article 10 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia on freedom
of opinion and expression. Anyone exercising their right to freedom of
speech and expression should not be made to suffer or be fearful of
retaliation or intimidation.
Therefore, SUHAKAM calls for the Government to:
- Repeal
the Sedition Act 1948 without further delay and address the
disproportionality in the presumption of "seditious tendency".
- Address
"hate speech" only as an exception to freedom of speech based on the
objective criteria rooted in Article 19 of the UDHR and Article 10(1)
Federal Constitution. Only "hate speech" defined and determined as
incitement to race, religious or national hatred and war should be
prohibited. At the same time, freedom of speech should be restricted
only to the extent necessary and proportionate to fulfil the legitimate
aims of respect for the reputation of others and for protection of
national security, public order, public morality, as prescribed in the
law.
- End the suppression of dissent now being mounted against critical voices or the need to haul them up for questioning.
SUHAKAM
wishes to remind the Government on its duty and responsibility to
protect the people's right to free speech, in line with Article 10 of
the Federal Constitution of Malaysia which guarantees Malaysian citizens
the right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of
association, as a democratic nation should be.
Source: Human Rights Commission of Malaysia
Date: 23 June 2020
