Wither our internet freedom?

IN August, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) announced its new Regulatory Framework for Internet Messaging Service and Social Media Service Providers — requiring all social media providers and internet chat services with over eight million users to obtain a Class License for Application Service Providers effective 1 January 2025.

The licensing requirement is supposedly aimed at creating a safer online space by holding these service providers accountable for the actions of their users.

Then, in September, the MCMC abruptly ordered for all Internet service providers (ISPs) to implement public domain name system (DNS) redirection for businesses, enterprises, and governments within just weeks — leaving little time for stakeholder consultation. The government subsequently reneged on its plans to implement DNS redirection following severe backlash from stakeholders concerned that the policy would scare investors away from the country, especially in the booming data centre and digital economy industry.

With Parliament in full swing for its final session this year, yet another form of Internet regulation appears to be brewing in the form of the Online Safety Bill 2024. Ostensibly, the Bill is aimed at mandating social media providers to comply with three main duties, namely ensuring platform safety, protecting children under 13, and restricting harmful content, respectively.

It is a good thing that the government is developing frameworks to create a safer cyber realm.

In an increasingly digitalised world, scams, impersonations, sexual harassment and cyberbullying are all dangers which actively lurk the web, and there needs to be a greater scope of protection for netizens.

Amidst the government’s ongoing efforts to regulate the Internet, some have praised the government for taking stern action against the social ills that plague the online sphere.

They cite the need for a framework to hold online platforms accountable for the actions of its users if they harm others, such as in the case of scammers.

Critics, however, have argued that these regulations may signal the death knell for freedom of speech, highlighting how the government may use them to stifle its critics by revoking the licenses of these online services; or in the case of the proposed Online Safety Bill, by ramping up content takedown orders if content is critical of the government or its leaders.

While few would deny the need for some form of a regulatory framework to create a safer online space, fears that our internet freedoms will be stifled are also not completely unwarranted.

Those of us experienced enough to remember how the government revoked the licenses of several top newspapers over their criticism of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 would know just how slippery a slope imposing excessive regulation can be for freedom of speech.

Notably, similarly to former provisions of that Act (which have since been amended), the new social media regulation requires annual renewal of licenses.

In Singapore, the island nation’s Home Affairs Ministry recently issued codes of practice which require Meta’s Facebook, and Carousell, respectively, to verify sellers deemed risky against government records in response to a significant increase in scams on these two websites.

By the year's end, other social media sites and messaging services like Facebook, Instagram, Telegram, WeChat and WhatsApp will also be required to implement measures to detect scams and malicious activities, and subsequently submit annual reports to authorities.

Singapore also maintains strict laws against cyberbullying under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA), with hefty fines or imprisonment for cyberbullying.

For example, a person found guilty of online harassment under the POHA may be liable for a penalty of up to SG$5,000, up to six months in jail, or both. If the culprit is convicted of a subsequent crime, the punishment may escalate to a SG$510,000 maximum fine, up to 12 months in jail, or both.

While Malaysians may have an inherent dislike for comparisons to our southern neighbour, there is something to be said of their approach in regulating the problems that plague their online sphere.

By focusing on specific cyber-related issues rather than imposing a blanket regulation on all and sundry, the overarching objectives of specific regulations are more likely to be achieved.

What Malaysia needs is focused regulation to tackle the specific malicious cyber activities that are on the rise.

Take cyberbullying, for instance. Cyberbullying cases in Malaysia usually are usually referred to Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998.

The problem, however, is that the law does not provide for an exact definition of cyberbullying, which in turn means that it is difficult to prosecute an offender for the offense in a way that ensures victims are safeguarded.

Another problematic example is in the area of online scams—which the MCMC explicitly highlights as a key area of concern under both the licensing requirement and Online Safety Bill respectively.

The issue is that it is not entirely clear how revoking the license of the platform provider or removing content can rectify the problems of scam victims if they are not compensated for their losses, especially if the scammers are left to be at large.

After all, if the scammers themselves are not held accountable, then it is only a matter of time before they continue scamming on other platforms.

The ultimate question, therefore, is not whether we need more regulations on the Internet, but whether we can create regulations that directly tackle the root of the problem without infringing on people’s freedoms.

Forming effective, comprehensive and cohesive laws to tackle these social ills must involve roundtable discussions with key industry players as well as the wider public.

It is imperative that a balance can be made between maintaining social media autonomy with the need to regulate these platforms.

Come what may, we need to strive for laws that are just and equitable to ensure that they achieve their main objectives. After all, justice should not only be done, but must be manifestly seen to be done.

> The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own