[COLUMNIST] The critical need for social media to be subject to greater regulation

The government wants to ensure a safe internet ecosystem for all users and stakeholders.

The underlying policy intention has been in the making as of last year when the then Minister for Communications and Digital (and now Minister of Communications) YB Fahmi Fadzil said that the unity government was planning to amend the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998 to strengthen the regulatory framework (“Fahmi: Communications and Multimedia Act to be amended”. New Straits Times, February 20, 2023).

Unsurprisingly, the move has been condemned by the two main groups of government critics as being, in effect, “dictatorial” and “spiteful”.

The first are the disenchanted liberal intelligentsia – frustrated by what they deem to be the slow pace of reforms under Malaysia MADANI.

The second are the metropolitan denizens who aren’t necessarily progressive like the liberal intelligentsia but still want to enjoy Western-style freedom of expression one and the same time (“having your cake and eating it too”).

Under the new requirement, all social media providers and internet messaging services with at least eight million registered users (very high user threshold) in Malaysia must apply for an Applications Service Provider Class (ASPC) licence.

It’s to be noted that the ruling only came about after extensive and close consultations and engagements with key stakeholders concerned, i.e., the social media platform providers (“Fahmi confident new rules for safe internet won't discourage investments”, Malaysiakini, July 31, 2024).

For now, as an immediate action in pursuant to the new licensing regime, it’s expected that amendments would have been made to the Communications and Multimedia (Licensing) Regulations (2000) and/or the Communications and Multimedia (Licensing) (Exemption) Order (2000), as the case may be, prior to August 1, 2024 or otherwise have been gazetted on the date itself.

According to the MCMC as the principal enforcer and custodian of the rule of law in the cyberspace realm, the new legal requirement aligns with the efforts of the unity government to:

• tackle and curb cybercrimes such as online gambling, online scams, software piracy, cyberbullying, harmful artificial intelligence (AI), the trifecta of race, religion and royalty (3R) issues, and, not least, child pornography – constituting the 1st limb”; as well as

• intensify and enhance compliance by social media providers and internet messaging services with Malaysian (domestic) laws, including the CMA (1998), Personal Data Protection Act (2010), Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of. Unlawful Activities Act (2001), Sexual Offences Against Children Act (2017), and the Penal Code – constituting the “2nd limb”.

The evils highlighted under the “1st limb” need no elaboration as these are inherently “self-explanatory”, i.e., their respective general and popular definitions already convey the nature of the crimes therein.

We can also add the rise and emergent popularity of crypto-currency – as a convenient tool for money laundering, illicit transactions and fraudulent schemes.

As for the “2nd Limb”, it complements and supplements the pre-existing law which, as has been referenced therein, would or might be amended to strengthen the regulatory framework.

In this connection, the “2nd limb” will support and bolster the amendments to, e.g., Sections 305 and 306 of the Penal Code too, whereby cyberbullies can be charged for influencing or abetting the suicides of children and mentally disabled persons.

EMIR Research had given our unequivocal support to the unity government in an article, “Social media as tool for national disunity” (April 4, 2023), when news of the proposed amendments to the CMA 1998 (as well as possibly to the Communications and Multimedia Commission Act, 1998) was reported in the media.

And EMIR Research continues to strongly support the unity government’s policy intention in the form of introducing the new licensing regulation.

In the same EMIR Research article, it’s written that “… extremist politicians [and their cybertroopers] deploy social media to peddle and hustle and tout a narrative [revolving around the 3R issues] that’s contrary to the fundamental concept of Malaysia – and what it means to be Malaysian – as defined and circumscribed by our Federal Constitution as the highest law of the land”. As such, “… social media can … be a tool to deepen divisions and the polarisation in our society and sustain the tension that exists”.

Moving on, as seen from the tragic case of the late influencer Esha (Rajeswary Appahu) who took her own life, we’re yet again reminded that social media is also a breeding ground for cyber-bullying with potentially devastating consequences.

The case wasn’t the first and most regrettably might not, conceivably, be the last.

Unless, of course, something is done to prevent that from ever happening again.

In 2018, pro-consumer and tech review website comparitech.com found that Malaysia was placed sixth among 28 countries in a survey to measure cyber-bullying.

Notably, Malaysia ranked second in Asia (“Malaysia sixth-worst in global cyber-bullying ladder, survey shows”, Malay Mail, October 27, 2018). In 2020, Malaysia was again ranked the second highest in Asia for cyberbullying in an Unicef (United Nations Children Fund) report (“Malaysia ranked second in Asia for cyberbullying among youth”, Malay Mail, January 14, 2022).

Therefore, the new law in place on August 1 couldn’t come at a more apposite time.

Detractors are framing the situation as an attack on freedom of expression and one more setback for the cause of reforms which Malaysia MADANI is supposed to be championing and helming now that Pakatan Harapan (PH) is back in power (albeit in partnership and coalition with Umno – alongside East Malaysian allies and friends).

They apparently overlook the regular (real and present) attacks by cybertroopers against the unity government (including on Twitter/X) in the form of fake news and incitements.

Before this, we saw how highly inflammatory contents circulated on TikTok that peaked during the 15th general election (GE15).

Many of the peddlers/perpetrators were youths barely old enough to vote under the new voting age enabled by the UNDI18 policy initiative and Alternative Voter Registration (AVR) mechanism. Prior to that, these extremely seditious TikTok recordings had already gone viral in the run up (“Social media monitor finds ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ narrative on the rise ahead of GE15, PAS’ Hadi ‘key amplifier’ of hate speech”, Malay Mail, November 17, 2022).

Are we to now ignore the fact that the unity government was pulled off under such highly tensed circumstances?

Not least, it can be argued that detractors choose to blatantly “disregard” the necessity of regulating social media in order to control and curb the evils enumerated under the “1st limb” (as alluded to).

To be fair, the detractors harbour a mix of motives and reasons for their strenuous and vociferous objection to the new regulatory framework.

For one, the liberal metropolitan elites are highly suspicious and distrustful of the unity government (comprising, as it is, of both PH and Umno as the leading collaborator – in what they now regard as an unholy alliance).

They think, rather unfairly, that PH has transformed into BN 2.0, conveniently “forgetting” that the situation of coalition politics wasn’t that much different than before i.e., under the original PH government when the erstwhile authoritarian figure who had been the “infamous” 4th Prime Minister became the 7th Prime Minister.

These detractors operate on the assumption that there’s a (so-called) “trust deficit” with the unity government.

As for the other critics, especially from the Opposition side, they’re leery because a principal arsenal and tool of political mischief would be undercut and cut off.

Potentially (and this has to be emphasised here), the aim of turning PMX into a hate figure could be “blunted” and, to an extent, neutralised in terms of the popular outreach (i.e., to the masses).

In the final analysis, the new regulation is the much needed (needless to say in the first place) antidote and sword against the presence of cyberbullies, scammers, unscrupulous politicians, cybertroopers, intellectual property (IP) dodgers, extremists (non-violent and militant), etc.

Politics as a culture of “knuckle-duster sports” (political “street-fighting”) would be compelled to focus on policies (based on evidence, data and sound economics) and shorn of dangerous and inflammatory falsehoods.

In short, the new regulation should usher in a more safe or amiable environment for everyone.

Everyone benefits.

This includes even the extremist/firebrand politicians because surely, they don’t want “to have blood on their hands”, so to speak.

Why shoulder that awful burden of having to bear responsibility for tragic incidents, if anyway at all (even if ever so hypothetically)?

People can still criticise but in a responsible, self-controlled and mature manner.

Shouldn’t this be the case?