THE government can tackle issues of cyberbullying and cybercrimes with regulations without requiring social media platforms to be licensed, Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) said today.
LFL director Zaid Malek expressed concern that the new licence requirement could be used by the government to silence dissenters and critics.
“Licensing of social media platforms is unnecessary, high-handed, and poses a serious danger to our democratic right to criticise or question the government. It should be remembered that this government already has a track record of forcing the removal of critical political content by making requests to social media operators,” he said in a statement.
He was referring to a government decision to introduce a regulatory framework for social media and internet messaging services on August 1, to be implemented by January 2025.
The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission warned that failure to obtain the licence after the effective date would constitute an offence.
To justify the licensing requirement, Deputy Communications Minister Teo Nie Ching said similar legislation exists in other countries such as Singapore and the UK.
Zaid said this was a false comparison, noting the countries mentioned do not impose licensing rules on social media providers.
"Instead, they have created a regulatory framework to deal with online safety," he said.
He criticised Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi for threatening to ban social media platforms and internet messaging service providers that do not comply with the rule.
Zaid said it was common knowledge that the government has consistently branded criticism as crime.
Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 was used against the critics of parliament under the guise of curbing the “widespread phenomenon of cyberbullying in society”.
“This is a government which is increasingly intolerant of criticism. It surely cannot be given the power to license social media platforms,” he added.
He said the government must withdraw the licence requirement and put in its place a regulatory scheme after consultation with the stakeholders.
“The right to political dissent and criticism must be protected. It should also not be implemented before relevant stakeholders are able to scrutinise the full extent of the objective of the regulations and the powers it will confer to the government regarding its enforcement." – July 29, 2024.
.jpg)
