Malaysia’s social media licensing rule: Online protection or censorship?

Tech companies have until January 1 to comply with the new rules

Originally published on Global Voices

Malaysia has released details of its new regulation requiring social media and internet messaging services with at least eight million registered users to apply for a license. The government said this is meant to curb online harm, but critics are worried that it could undermine freedom of expression.

The ruling was unveiled on August 1, but companies have until January 2025 to comply with the requirements. Based on initial figures of online platforms with at least 8 million users in Malaysia, the ruling will apply to Facebook, Facebook Messenger, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, Telegram, WeChat, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube. The license is valid for one year and will need to be renewed annually.

According to the press statement of the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC), the government's objective is “to create a safer online environment for all Malaysians, especially children and those vulnerable to online harm.” It is intended to prevent cyberbullying, online scams, and predatory sexual activities. MCMC assured internet users that they will benefit from this new regulation:

MCMC reiterates that end users of the said service providers will not be affected by this regulatory framework and only service providers.

Users on the other hand will benefit from enhanced security features and a better user experience as a result of service providers’ proactive compliance with Malaysian laws. Users can expect a safer online environment and clearer channels of complaint regarding online harm.

Licensed companies that fail to adhere to local laws can be slapped with administrative sanctions and suspension orders and could be at risk of having their registration cancelled.

Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil noted that countries like the United Kingdom and Singapore have already expressed interest in Malaysia’s social media licensing rule. He told this to the media:

We might be the first mover on this issue because on average, many governments around the world feel that these big technology companies can no longer do as they please to accumulate wealth and not follow rules and laws… those days will soon be over.

But civil society groups, ARTICLE 19, and the Centre for Independent Journalism have asked authorities to refrain from “hasty decision-making” especially since the new regulation “is seen as a direct attempt to exert control over social media platforms.” They warned that the requirement to undergo licensing renewal could lead platforms “to be more compliant and consent to more removal requests from the government instead on focusing on effective and timely content moderation.” Instead of a licensing regulation, they suggested the establishment of a “social media council that would promote a multi-stakeholder independent regulatory framework” and the setting up of an “independent committee to review the root causes of hate speech and cyberbullying, and relatedly develop a comprehensive plan of action.”

Zaid Malek, director of Lawyers for Liberty, reminded the government that “it is acceptable to impose regulations, but not to threaten social media providers with a licensing scheme which gives power to government to shut them down.” He added that:

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.

Another member of the group expressed concern about the real motive of officials in requiring companies to apply for licenses:

How is this a legitimate objective of the social media licensing law?

If u think this is fine then u don't value freedom of speech / expression. pic.twitter.com/ol962ZixCj

— Eric Paulsen (@EricPaulsen101) July 31, 2024

Bersih, a coalition of groups pushing for reforms in governance, is worried that the licensing has the “great potential to be misused as a legal framework to restrict freedom of speech” since “punitive laws” like the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 remain in effect.

While the current government initially pledged to reform and overhaul “draconian laws,” so far it has failed to take concrete and decisive action regarding this commitment.

Meanwhile, some netizens have raised doubts about the effectiveness of licensing to stop scams since the phone registration requirement has not prevented the proliferation of phone-related cybercrimes. Some are suspecting that the real aim of officials is to silence dissent,

Dr Ngo Sheau Shi, a senior lecturer in the School of Communications at Universiti Sains Malaysia, emphasized the need for balance in enforcing the licensing rule.

While lauding this development, I believe it is crucial to raise awareness of the delicate balance between regulatory efforts and the preservation of freedom of expression within the online ecosystem.

This balance can be struck by specifying clear, narrow definitions of prohibited content, based on internationally recognised human rights standards. Any restrictions should be necessary, proportionate and the least intrusive means available to achieve the objectives of the law.

This framework must clearly distinguish between content that is genuinely harmful and content that constitutes legitimate expressions of opinion, critique and dissent, especially when directed towards authorities and power structures.

Written by Mong Palatino