As hate speech online grows rampant, all-women panel discusses how Malaysian laws can silence the wrong people

Malay Mail
Malay Mail

KUALA LUMPUR, June 27 — As social media’s prominence grows, users and content creators have mostly been resigned to see hate speech become part and parcel of the online experience.

With hate speech becoming more common in comments under popular posts, why does Malaysia still struggle when dealing with hate speech? A webinar by industry forum for self-regulation Communications and Multimedia Content Forum of Malaysia today aimed to arrive at an answer.

Nalini Elumalai, the senior programme officer from the Malaysian chapter of global free speech advocate Article 19 suggested that this has been exacerbated by the misuse of the country’s archaic laws.

“The Sedition Act 1948 or Section 211 and 233 of [Communications and Multimedia Act 1998], which particularly deal with contents online content but also, so-called sedition, the problem with this law — it has been abused, misused, for so many years.

“What we see in practical, legitimate hate speech going unaddressed and nobody is taking any action against like legitimate hate speeches that happen, against people. The real legitimate hate speakers are not being accountable for whatever they have been saying,” she said at the forum titled “Words Wound: Balancing Free Speech and Human Rights”.

In consequence, people don’t trust those laws any more, she added.

But the rampancy of hate speech cannot be halted by laws alone, because education and having hard conversations to understand each other better is the key to a better society, Nalini said.

While the all-women panel noted the need to strike a balance between freedom of expression and hate speech, Nalini emphasised that any form of speech that advocates for violence, discrimination and hostility should be barred in line with international standards.

Nandini Balakrishnan, a content creator for media company Says shared that she encounters hate speech daily and it has affected the way she lives.

On the other hand, student activist Ain Husniza Saiful Nizam, who raised awareness and challenged a teacher for allegedly making rape jokes in her classroom said that she was diagnosed with major depressive disorder because of the overwhelming amount of hatred projected onto her.

Nandini said she now avoids certain parts of town, and Ain related how she had to change secondary schools as a result of the backlash.

But the webinar suggested that what both Ain and Nandini had in common was that they both used their platforms to challenge the status quo and that they were women.

Hate speech thrown at them often revolved around their identity — gender, race, skin colour, and how they presented themselves — it suggested.

“When I first started doing it, like maybe about eight years ago, I used to feel like I’m going to get used to it at some point.

“But if there’s anything I’ve learnt almost a decade into it, is that it does faze you and it never feels any better,” Nandini said.

Also joining the forum was former researcher from think tank The Centre, Tham Jia Vern.

In human rights watchdog Suara Rakyat Malaysia’s (Suaram) annual report this year, it noted that Section 233 of the CMA was used 76 times for investigation and or arrest last year and 21 other cases led to a charge in court. Out of all the cases in 2023, 46.9 per cent entailed online content related to race, religion or royalty.

Under the Sedition Act, investigation, arrest and remands amounted to 24 times and only another four people were charged — only one case involved an insult to royalty and the rest entailed “disaffection against the administration of justice and those currently in public office”, Suaram said in its report.

Section 211 of the CMA revolves around the prohibition of offensive content which carries a punishment of a fine not exceeding fifty thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or both.

Section 233 of the CMA criminalises improper use of network facilities or network services, which carries the same punishment as section 211.