Minister Fahmi just admitted that the Malaysian government caused to be removed over 300,000 online content ALLEGEDLY because it violated national laws - The problem is that we do not believe you - so tell us clearly what was the content removed, and specifically what national law did it allegedly violate.
The worry is that Malaysian government may have also removed content that are CRITICAL of government actions/omissions, or views/opinions that are not in agreement with CURRENT government views/opinions. We want confirmation that it is not the case.
Who decides whether someone by his action/commission violates national laws - it is the Courts after a fair trial, not Minister Fahmi or the government. Likewise, it is the Courts only that decides whether an online content is in violation of national laws. All Minister Fahmi or the government can say is that they SUSPECT or ALLEGE that the online content has broken the law - it is the Court that definitely determine whether it is a law-breaking online content, and even then, the Judge may be wrong as his/her decision may be overturned by higher courts on appeal. HENCE, it is important that the government first obtains a COURT WARRANT before it acts to remove any post/online content - this can be done very fast, but it is an important 'Check and Balance' to reduce risk of government wrongdoing or abuse.
Whenever an online content is removed - it must be LISTED, and the reason for its removal must be specifically stated - i.e. which law and which provision of the law did it violate? If it is about pornography, online gambling or some 'Macau Scam', then most Malaysians are OK about it.
But, if it is about views/expression critical of PM Anwar or some Minister or the government, it is a TOTALLY Different Matter - for it is a violation of the freedom of speech/expression - and the one who posted/shared such posts and those who were supposed to receive such communications have had the RIGHT to know what the government did, and WHY - and to also know that it was the Malaysian government that did it, and thus, those aggrieved by this government action have a RIGHT of Appeal to the Minister, and thereafter to go to the Courts for a Judicial Review or other legal challenge.
Minister Fahmi '...said social media platform providers also removed 300,952 pieces of content identified as violating Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 and other offences under national laws. "Of this total, 17,514 were false content, 14,374 were offensive content, 1,146 were pornographic content, 144 were threatening content, 34 were indecent content, and the remaining 267,740 involved criminal offences under the jurisdiction of other agencies," he said.
From, the media report - it seems that the Malaysian Government(or MCMC) asked media platform providers to REMOVE the content - so, the removal was because of government action. So did the Malaysians who posted or shared informed of this Government decision/action and WHY it was done? Remember, how PM Anwar Ibrahim was angry when FB removed his post - thus he would understand how Malaysians feel when their post are removed - they want to know WHY? and, of course, where their right of Appeal lies? To the Minister or to FB or some App owner?
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE - of post removal actions and Why it was done is also important to EDUCATE people of the law broken, and why the government allege the particular law was broken - remember in Section 233, it can be removed if it was 'obscene, indecent, false, menacing or grossly offensive in character' and secondly that it was done with the '... with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, harass or commit an offence involving fraud or dishonesty against, any person...' - so the information needed was (a) was it obscene, false, menacing, grossly offensive - and why was it so?, and (b) secondly tell us what was the intention = was to annoy, harrass, commit fraud or dishonesty against persons... The government must disclose this clearly...so that persons aggrieved can rightfully appeal the government's decision.
If other laws, mention it clearly.
TRANSPARENCY demands that the full list of post/accounts acted upon by the government maybe on the MCMC website - so persons aggrieved know, and can then appeal to the Minister, and/or later take up a legal challenge in court.
The Malaysian Bar and many others have called for the REPEAL of Section 233 - because it is unjust and too vague, and open to abuse...
At present the Government by its action causes the removal of posts - but sometimes 'hides' its action, so people will wrongly assume it was done by the social media platform on its own. If the Government did it or made the removal request, be HONEST and disclose it.
Was the content of the removed post really FALSE or menacing or grossly offensive to people, or just maybe some Minister or the government of the day? Did it really annoy or harass the people or just the PM and the government? It is a bad piece of legislation that ought to be REPEALED.
300,000 post removed - but why have those who made these post not been charged in Court? Is the government worried that the Court will decide differently from what the government decided?
There must be a requirement for a COURT WARRANT before the government can act to remove any post. That allows the INDEPENDENT Court to assess whether the said post really breaks Malaysian laws, and ought to be removed or not. The court may NOT AGREE with Minister Fahmi. Going to Court for a Warrant is also HONEST, and it allows for the person who posted the right to challenge the Court Order, knowing also that its was the government who violated his freedom of speech, expression and right of communication... and not falsely blame some sosial media provider...
OPEN Transparent Action also EDUCATES the Public about the LAW - and what they can do and cannot do. Simply secretly blocking posts, for some unclear reason, may lead to a false impressions, and also continued ignorance of the law. A person may simply post again something not knowing that he/she is breaking the law because of current practice...Section 233 COMMUNICATIONS AND MULTIMEDIA ACT 1998(1) A person who-
(a) by means of any network facilities or network service or applications service knowingly- (i) makes, creates or solicits; and (ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion or other communication which is obscene, indecent, false, menacing or grossly offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, harass or commit an offence involving fraud or dishonesty against, any 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,
commits an offence.
No one is unhappy with the REMOVAL of pornography, online gambling, scam sites - but the concern is that the government may be ABUSING its power to remove views/expressions/whistle blowers content/etc that differ or oppose the government views, or the Prime Minister's/Ministers views, maybe even views/expressions that support the Opposition parties,etc That is a violation of Human Rights - our Freedom of Expression/Opinion/Etc
FALSE - If it is FALSE, government's duty is to correct it. Just removal of post is FOOLISH - for people still do not know the truth.
What the government claim is FALSE may later turn out to be true - Remember once the Attorney General claimed that Najib did no CRIME with regard the 1MDB cases - today, we know what the government then said was FALSE - for Najib since then have been convicted and currently serving a sentence.
FALSE too sometimes is RELATIVE - and many a times, where one said something was false was proven wrong. Anwar too, did he not claim his charges were 'FALSE' - but then the Court decided that they were indeed true, and he was convicted at end.
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. Human Rights Commission of Malaysia
See also:-
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 (Malaysian Bar)
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)...- MADPET
End U-Turns and Apologetics to justify not repealing Sedition Act 1948 and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998
Bar Resolution on Respect of Privacy, End of “Spying” and Intervention of Internet without Due Notice, ... Will Anwar's PH-led government do the needful?
Akmal or anyone should not be investigated under draconian Sedition Act or Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act(MADPET)
MCMC/Government Decision to Report/Request for Removal to FB, Tik Tok, etc is actionable, and should be subject to Judicial Review - High Court Judge ERRED?
MALAYSIA, Stop asking TIK TOK to CENSOR our posts - Government must ACT only when laws broken and according to LAW.
Fahmi: Over 300,000 online content removed for violating national laws
The measures are to prevent the spread of criminal activities and harmful content that could damage public morality and threaten national security.
Updated 8 hours ago · Published on 26 Feb 2025 8:55AM
"The right to freedom of expression is not absolute and remains subject to existing laws, as outlined in Article 10(2) of the Federal Constitution.
"Every content removal adhered to existing legal provisions, including the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, the Penal Code, and other criminal laws," he said.
He said social media platform providers also removed 300,952 pieces of content identified as violating Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 and other offences under national laws.
"Of this total, 17,514 were false content, 14,374 were offensive content, 1,146 were pornographic content, 144 were threatening content, 34 were indecent content, and the remaining 267,740 involved criminal offences under the jurisdiction of other agencies," he said.
He said the measures are to prevent the spread of criminal activities and harmful content, such as hate speech or material that could damage public morality and threaten national security.
"It is not intended to suppress media freedom or restrict citizens' freedom of expression," he added. - February 26, 2025, Vibes
Fahmi: 3,670 websites with obscene material blocked and 1,993 posts removed
MCMC increased its monitoring efforts with service providers to quickly identify, block, and remove obscene ads on social media.
Updated 1 day ago · Published on 25 Feb 2025 2:02PM
A TOTAL of 1,993 obscene social media posts were removed, and 3,670 websites with obscene material blocked from 2022 to February 15.
Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil said the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) increased its monitoring efforts with service providers to quickly identify, block, and remove obscene ads on social media.
"Between 2022 and February 15, platform providers removed 1,993 obscene posts after requests from MCMC under the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998. During the same period, 3,670 websites were blocked.
"To create a safer online environment for everyone, MCMC requires all social media and messaging services with at least eight million registered users in Malaysia to apply for a license starting January 1.
"This measure aims to ensure compliance with the CMA 1998 and adherence to MCMC's Code of Conduct (Best Practices), enhancing accountability for online content and user interactions," he said.
Fahmi was responding to Dr. Halimah Ali (PN-Kapar) in the Dewan Rakyat regarding the ministry's policies to tackle pornographic ads on social media, tabloids, and online media, which could encourage sexual harassment and create tension in marriages. - February 25, 2025, Vibes
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment