Why Licensing Won T Control Internet Abuses

---

Licensing is more about control than regulation.
In the context of reducing abuse through social media platforms and messaging services it will do nothing but merely introduce yet another layer of bungling bureaucracy for our Napoleons - little and not so little - to abuse at will and without compunction.
What is needed, first of all, is to use all the existing legislation to bring the numerous miscreants to book and then only look to introduce additional measures. Blanket licensing must remain a last resort because once adopted they are seldom, if ever, removed.
Additional measures - not licensing - could include cyberbullying laws and other related and similar legislation that target those who abuse social media. Mete out punishment to them instead of targeting the media.
The history of our country has shown the licensing leverage against media, any media, whether foreign or local will be used against them if they do not behave according to what the government wants them to do.
That much of the print media in Malaysia easily conform to government requirements can not only be traced to the fact that print media was and is largely owned by those sympathetic to the government but also to the infamous Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA).
This act gives total power, with no provision of appeal to the courts, to the home minister. The minister can and has suspended publications at will and at the literal stroke of a pen. A newspaper can face the death knell as a result.
Reasons given don’t make sense
Every government that has ruled this country, including the current Madani government, has failed in its promise to deliver a free and fair press and to remove offending legislation within several acts that inhibit the flow of information.
Besides the PPPA, these include the Official Secrets Act, the Sedition Act, many provisions of the Penal Code such as those providing for criminal defamation, and the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA).
In fact, in a recent case of cyberbullying which led to suicide, there were provisions to charge the bully/bullies under several provisions in the penal code and the CMA, but the government prosecutor chose to use an obscure act to charge one bully as I wrote here.
The incomprehensible thing is that this particular cyberbully, a woman named Shalini Periasamy, was charged with the least severe law possible for this - Section 14 of the Minor Offences Act 1955 for insulting behaviour - when other acts with far heavier penalties could have been used. The maximum penalty under this act was RM100!
Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil continues to say that this was the final straw that broke the camel’s back in terms of the decision to license. But why did the government not use existing laws to punish these miscreants more severely?
Communications Minister Fahmi FadzilIn that interview with Singapore’s Channel News Asia, he was pointedly asked why licensing was required when industry regulator MCMC already had the power to block such content. (Note that Singapore has no licensing requirement in its control of social media platforms and messaging services but strict laws.) Fahmi sidestepped this question.
“These platforms have been cooperative but we do believe that we need to do this (licensing) to make it safer for children and families… we need that.” He did not answer the question.
For a further explanation of how other countries regulate social media, I would recommend this KiniGuide.
A close examination of the issue shows that there is no need for licensing social media and platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, Telegram, and X. Unless, of course, there is an agenda that we do not know about.
Recently, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim had Facebook posts on his meeting with a now-assassinated Hamas leader taken down and he and Fahmi protested. The posts have been restored with Meta saying they were removed in error.
Could it be that licensing will give the government more leverage with these mega-platforms? Who knows - because the other reasons just don’t add up to something sensible.
If it can be abused, it will be
Paradoxically, this current government owes its existence to a lot of noise made through the internet, social media platforms, messaging services, and social media portals, including this one over the previous government led by the corrupt Najib Abdul Razak, brought down in the 2018 elections.
These circumvented the biased and suppressed reporting of the licensed print media to deliver message after message to the rakyat. Any attempt to control the media should be looked at in this context.
At the end of the day, this is a lot of trouble for something that won’t end current internet abuses and may in the future be used by the powers that be to suppress freedom of information on the net to Malaysians when it suits them and will help keep them in power.
Thinking people within the government, and I hope there are some, should stop this senseless, needless move that will put excessive power in the hands of the government.
Licensing enables the exercise of power arbitrarily, regulation gives space for negotiation, and, if all else fails, legal redress. History shows that unfettered powers are without exception abused.
We don’t want that. - Mkini
P GUNASEGARAM says licensing any form of medium is dangerous - it’s the message that needs to be monitored, not the medium.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.

---