FEBRUARY 20 — Technology can make it look as if anyone has said or done anything. Is it the next wave of misinformation warfare? The current hot topic being featured in most aired social network is The Anti-Fake News Act. It covers "news, information, data and reports which is or are wholly or partly false” and included features, visuals and audio recordings. This new Act revolves around digital publications and social media which also applies to offenders outside Malaysia, including foreigners, if Malaysia or a Malaysian citizen are affected.

Malaysia’s Anti-Fake News Act is punishable by up to six years in jail and a fine of up to RM500,000. Some lawmakers who are against the bill have argued that the law is a threat to free speech, and critics believe it to be written in an intentionally vague way. They believe this bill is a weapon to close the truth so that what is false can be upheld as true, and what is true can be reversed as false. Hence, a few activists had also put forth their opinion stating that the law was clearly designed to silence criticism of the authorities and to quell public debate.

This situation bedazzles me as to how such Act has been passed through the parliament since existing laws can still be applicable to today’s recurring issue on curbing fake news. However, it did ignite a spark of curiosity in me to dive deeper into this matter.

I believe the existing laws could help deter fake news such as the Penal Code (act 574). This law codifies most criminal offences and procedures in Malaysia. It includes articles such as Article 500: Punishment for defamation, Article 501: Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory, and Article 502: Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter. Next, the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1948 spans fundamental concepts, such as "the freedom of the press” and a wide range of ordinary laws covering defamation (civil and criminal), sedition, contempt of court (civil and criminal), blasphemy, copyright, plagiarism, privacy, confidentiality and censorship, broadcasting, cinematography, and advertising. The existing laws help to sustain the press freedom by guaranteeing it in Article 10 Clause (1) of the Federal Constitution, which states that "Every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression”, but it is subjected to Clauses (2), (3) and (4)”.

Furthermore, the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 stated that Malaysian journalists and social media activists should remember that whilst they are free to write what they wish, they are always subject to these restrictions and limitations. On top of that, new media journalists should take note that whilst they need not comply with the PPPA, they are, nevertheless, subjected to the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA), especially Section 211 (prohibition on offensive content) and Section 233 (improper use of network facilities or network service). Thus, as long as Article 10 remains in force, so do the limitations and restrictions.

On the other hand, Malaysia is one of the first countries to create laws regarding fake news. The Anti-Fake News Act has been criticized for impeding on free speech and its loose definition of fake news.  Hence, the reason why a majority of the parliament voted for its repeal. Nonetheless, the senate had rejected the Anti-fake News (repeal) Bill 2018, which was earlier passed by the Dewan Rakyat because they believed that the law should be improved rather than abolished. The question is, should we see this as a tool the government uses in restraining the freedom of speech for its own foul desire or acknowledge the severity of the threat?

Therefore, I find this Anti-Fake News Act 2018 to be irrelevant with the current existence of Penal Code, Printing Presses and Publications Act 1948 and Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 in preventing the rise of fake news issues. In principle, any law constraining the flow of information will hinder the freedom of speech. The right approach would be to inculcate the habits of verifying the information received instead of accepting it blindly. In other words, we must be mindful of the things we consume and share online because it will influence the person we become tomorrow.

* Nurul Hafidzah Hassan is an advocate and solicitor.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.