Social media platform TikTok recorded 2,606 requests from the Malaysian government to remove or restrict content on its platform in 1H2024, the highest among all governments in the period, according to its latest report on government removal requests. This marks an increase of 39.96% from 1,862 requests to the social media platform in 2H2023, and more than seven times compared with 340 similar requests in 1H2023, the report’s statistics showed.
So, the Malaysian government sadly is ACTIVELY(growing as time passes) asking Tik Tok (and possibly FB and other communication Apps) to remove Malaysian's post or to restrict...This is a Government Decision, and thus ought to be subject to Judicial Review. It is immaterial that the government do not have the ability to REMOVE themselves, the said post. It is also immaterial whether after receiving the request/complaint FB or service provider did nothing. What is important here is the government decision to make a request/complaint about a post of a Malaysian...
If a Minister orders/requests/tells a public officer to tamper with evidence/witnesses irrespective of whether the public officer did so, it is a CRIME.[Allegation of Abuse of Power with regards law enforcement surfaces again against PM Anwar Ibrahim and others - how this be dealt with matters to the Rakyat? ] That was the charges our PM Anwar Ibrahim was convicted for then
It is a crime if you offer someone a 'bribe' to do something, it is a crime - it matters not if it was done by the person or not. If a person orders/pays for/tells another to kill someone, it should be a CRIME? Likewise, a request by the government, to remove a post and/or restrict someone's account to FB/Tik Tok/... it is a serious wrongdoing, is it not?
It is a fact that FB or Tik Tok may have never considered post removal, if not for the Malaysian government actions. Thus, the High Court Judge ERRED when he denied leave to apply for Judicial Review to a 'victim' of FB post removal(based on media report, not knowing reasons of Judge, points considered, etc).
Malaysia sends a request to FB, Tik Tok, etc to remove a post - Is this an action, nay a DECISION, that the person whose post has been removed can go to Court for a Judicial Review? Is this a decision, if by Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) sent an appeal to Minister Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil?
TRUE, that acting on the 'request for removal' or 'complaint' by the relevant Public Officer, in the MCMC, Facebook, Tik Tok, etc then REMOVES the post - or may even go further and BLOCK the account to prevent further posting.
The High Court '...dismissed a lawyer's bid to initiate judicial review proceedings against the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) over a restriction placed on his Facebook post last year (2024). The High Court on Thursday (Jan 23) ruled that the decision to remove Dr Shamsher Singh Thind's post was made by Facebook and not MCMC, hence it could not be subjected to a judicial review.(Star, 23/1/2025)
In my opinion, the High Court Judge may have ERRED or made a mistake - But, there must be a qualification here as my opinion is based on media reports, and it is important to look at the Judgment. It also would depend on points made or not made in submission, and also the cause papers to see what exactly was applied for..
The decision to request removal or 'report' the post to FB, Tik Tok, etc was a GOVERNMENT DECISION - done by a public officer or MCMC. - Hence the decision to request removal or 'report' the post must and should be subjected to Judicial Review or an appeal or court action. An IMPORTANT question would be whether the MCMC or the government made a 'request for removal', complained or reported the said post to FB, Tik Tok,...
If they did, then it would be subjected to Judicial Review
Judicial review is a type of legal case where a judge (or judges) reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public authority.
- The public authority did not have the power to make the decision, or if they did have the power to make the decision, perhaps they made it by considering irrelevant information. It mightbe that they restricted themselves through a rigid policy and didn’t consider all relevant factors.
- The decision is irrational. This means the decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable public authority would have made it (this is sometimes called Wednesbury unreasonableness).
- The public body has not followed fair procedures in making the decision, this includes making sure the decision is impartial.
- A new consideration the lawfulness of a decision can also be challenged using judicial review if that decision breaches human rights
Did MCMC or the government "report the post', report the post because there was a complaint lodged by a third party, or was it simply an action of the MCMC/government acting on its own?
Did MCMC/Government inform the person whose post was to be acted upon the 'grounds' for the government's action? Was the person given the opportunity to be heard?
Did the MCMC/Government get a Court Order before it acted? Court would naturally consider whether there are good reasons for the government to lodge a complain about the post, or to request its removal? Was it a CRIME or just some post that criticized the PM/Government? BEST that a Court Order is obtained, if not the 'decision' of the MCMC/Goverment to complain or request removal reasonably is subject to JUDICIAL REVIEW, etc
Remember, in Malaysia making a 'false report" or making false statements is a crime.
REASONABLE suspicion, not mere suspicion, that a crime is committed is also a requirement - Was the post a CRIME? Was there reasonable suspicion?
Sadly, in Malaysia the suspected criminal is not even sometimes informed before his/her post is removed - following a Government/MCMC request to FB, Apps owner or service provider?
'2606 post requested by the Malaysian government in the 1st half of 2024 to be removed' - were the individuals who wrote these post(or posted it) even informed that their post was removed by Tik Tok by reason government actions?
I wonder whether SEDITION ACT is being used still to remove post that are critical of PM Anwar and the Government?? We do not know ... and the government is not transparent to disclose these information publicly - it could on the MCMC Website telling us which post was removed, and WHY?
Have we heard of criminal actions taken against these 2,606 or less persons that government requested Tik Tok to be removed because the posting/writing of such posts are a CRIME? Did the post removed not written/posted by the user?To think that Malaysian government can decide to act resulting our post to be removed as it 'pleases' or Minister Fahmi Fadzil feels should be removed is disturbing.
The removal of a persons post is a violation of human rights - Art 5(1) 'No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.' It is also a violation of right of 'freedom of speech and expression; The victims would not just be the person who posted, but also those that would have had the opportunity to consider the views/the sharings
To do it to any person, without first according the right to be heard or challenge the government's decision is wrong...If MCMC/government had only asked the person - he/she may have just removed the said post. If the government SECRETLY tampers with our communication, it is a GREAT INJUSTICE - as we do not even know WHO complained/Reported? WHY? What was so wrong with the post - which law did it contravene?
ONLINE communication is a way how many people communicate with others, be it their friends, family, associates or those in the groups they joined. In FB, there is NO WAY to send it to everyone. In any event, to communicate views/opinions to everyone is not a CRIME.
PRIVACY - this is precious. To think the Malaysian government is continuously 'spying' on everyone, to weed out posts, that is an alleged CRIME, or something the government does not like is SHOCKING.
Worse, when the Government BLOCKS the post directly, or indirectly by asking FB or even some email provider.
This MUST END, because we do not even know whether the person we directed the post to received it or NOT. That happened by reason of the government's own action - not only is our PRIVACY violated, but our right to communicate too.
We recall how our Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's post was blocked by FB - and there the government acted, and allegedly FB 'apologized' and the post/s was restored by FB. This is EXACTLY how all persons feel when their POST is blocked - even worse when we discovered that the BLOCKING happened because our own PM Anwar's government requested it be removed/blocked, etc - worse still if they requested our ACCOUNTS to be blocked - hence, again a violation of human right, the deprivation of a means of communication.
Malaysia Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim on Thursday accused Meta Platforms of cowardice after his Facebook post on the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was removed, in his government’s latest run-in with the firm over blocked content.
Will the government act in the same way, as they did in the case of Anwar Ibrahim, if we complain to the government/MCMC that our post has been blocked/removed unjustly by FB or some other Apps. I believe MCMC must act against FB or other apps if Malaysians lodge a complain to MCMC - protect our freedom of expression...
CHANGES needed - No power to spy on everyone - but only on those because there exist a REASONABLE SUSPICION that he/she has committed a crime, and the 'spying' must be restricted to just the crime investigated - and not to find other CRIMES. It is CRUCIAL that there must be an application to Court for a 'warrant to SPY' - Courts, before issuing such warrants, will determine whether there exist REASONABLE suspicion, and if so will restrict just to spy for reason of acquiring evidence for that specific crime, and nothing more.
There must also in LAW, an imposition of 'CONFIDENTIALITY' on all officers and government to not disclose any other information in our online communication to any others. This must be a CRIME, and the sentence must be DETERRENT.
I reiterate, when the government/MCMC makes a complaint, a request of removal or any other restrictions of a certain Malaysian's post/account - it is a government's decision, and naturally it should be subject to Judicial Review. It can also be a basis for a CIVIL SUIT against the government by the victim/s. It can also be a CRIME committed by said public officer and the government?
In the Ipoh case, it was not even a decision on hearing of the Judicial Review - It was an application for leave to commence a Judicial Review application.
Even if FB or the relevant App owner decides not to remove the POST, the government action is WRONG and one may have a remedy in law?
Malaysia must respect people, and their freedom of expression and opinion. No 'arbitrary' administration action to take actions that may result in a person's post be removed, restricted or even blocked, done sometimes secretly with even the victim knowing ...
Court dismisses lawyer's bid for judicial review against MCMC over removal of Facebook post
N. TRISHA Thursday, 23 Jan 2025 5:57 PM MYT
GEORGE TOWN: The High Court here has dismissed a lawyer's bid to initiate judicial review proceedings against the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) over a restriction placed on his Facebook post last year (2024).
The High Court on Thursday (Jan 23) ruled that the decision to remove Dr Shamsher Singh Thind's post was made by Facebook and not MCMC, hence it could not be subjected to a judicial review.
In his decision delivered via Zoom on Thursday (Jan 23), Justice Anand Ponnudurai said MCMC's action was not a "decision" which the court could review.
He said the decision was made by Facebook and that MCMC had only issued a request for action.
Anand said Shamsher Singh had failed to present an arguable case to secure leave for judicial review.
Describing the legal request by MCMC as an administrative act, the judge said it was not one that is legally enforceable.
"Any recourse, if at all, is against Facebook, and possibly MCMC, in the civil courts," Anand said.
Anand said social media platforms have the final say in content moderation, even when prompted by regulators such as MCMC.
Earlier, Shamsher Singh's lawyer, A. Srimurugan, said his client wanted the court to declare that MCMC had no legal power to issue its directive.
"MCMC does not have authority under the law to issue a directive to Facebook instructing them to remove content," he said.
Srimurugan, who appeared with J. Gunamalar, said that although MCMC's action was referred to as an administrative request, it took the form of a directive.
"Whether it is called an administrative request or otherwise, the action needs to be scrutinised by the court.
"The Attorney General in his affidavit refers to it as an administrative request, while Facebook calls it a legal request.
"The issue here revolves around the labels being used. We interpret it as an order or directive from MCMC," he said.
In written submissions, the Attorney General had asked for the application to be dismissed, saying the MCMC's administrative request was "neither susceptible nor amenable to a judicial review application".
The court made no order as to costs.
The Attorney General was represented by federal counsel Aliza Jamaluddin.
Shamsher Singh Thind had made an application to quash an administrative request that resulted in his Facebook post being blocked for Malaysian users, in May 2024.
In his application to the court, Shamsher Singh claimed that MCMC had violated his freedom of speech by blocking the post.
He wanted the court to declare the regulator's actions illegal and wanted MCMC to drop its "directive" to Facebook calling for the post to be blocked.
In the blocked Facebook post, Shamsher had linked the award of a government contract to the husband of a Cabinet minister.
The post sparked intense debate online, prompting MCMC to request that Facebook restrict its visibility.
According to Shamsher Singh, Facebook subsequently blocked the post from being viewed within the country, after "a legal and human rights assessment".
When contacted by The Star, Shamsher Singh said The High Court did not allow his application to challenge the decision of MCMC for sending a legal request to Facebook, which has resulted in the restriction of his post related to comments on a minister's husband's company in Malaysia.
"The reason is not because the legal request is justified or because l was wrong in writing the post, but because, according to the attorney-general, it was only a request and not a decision susceptible to judicial review.
"I am not appealing as l do not see any error in the court's judgment.
"Even the Attorney General's request for costs was denied by the Judge," he said. - Star, 23/1/2025
KUALA LUMPUR (Dec 24): Social media platform TikTok recorded 2,606 requests from the Malaysian government to remove or restrict content on its platform in 1H2024, the highest among all governments in the period, according to its latest report on government removal requests.
This marks an increase of 39.96% from 1,862 requests to the social media platform in 2H2023, and more than seven times compared with 340 similar requests in 1H2023, the report’s statistics showed.
The tally comprises government requests to remove or restrict content or accounts, including requests with inaccurate URLs, according to TikTok’s terminology.
In response, TikTok took action on 86% of the requests, the data showed.
In the same period, TikTok also took action against 5,296 posts and 423 TikTok due to local law violations.
Conversely, 2,229 posts and 2,080 accounts were targeted for violating community guidelines.
Meanwhile, the platform did not take action against 1,311 reported content and 319 reported accounts. These are posts and accounts which had been reviewed and deemed not to have violated TikTok’s community guidelines and/or local law.
After Malaysia, the second on the list was Indonesia with 778 content removal requests, followed by Australia (522), Russia (492), Pakistan (371) and Türkiye (295).
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment