It’s really an unnecessary law

The anti-fake news law overlaps other Acts and isn’t in the interest of good governance and justice.

NOW that the dust has settled after GE14, it is time for me to return to topics that more immediately affect day-to-day life in Malaysia.

The Anti-Fake News Act 2018 has been the subject of dissatisfaction and comment although a lot of people are unclear about its true effect.

So, I have examined the Act and tried to understand its purpose. I have concluded that the legislation is in fact unnecessary. It is difficult to figure out what was in the minds of those who drafted and passed it other than to create controversy.

I started by looking up the meaning of “fake” in the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary.

As an adjective, the word means not genuine or appearing to be something it is not, and is used in the context of showing disapproval. The noun refers to “an object such as a work of art, a coin or a piece of jewellery that is not genuine but has been made to look as if it is” or “a person who pretends to be what they are not in order to deceive people”.

Fake as a verb is to make something false seem genuine, especially in order to deceive somebody.

It appears that the word “fake” applies to people or things. In its preamble, the Act states that it is “an Act to deal with fake news and related matters”. It then defines “fake news” as including “any news, information, data and reports, which is or are wholly or partly false, whether in the form of features, visuals or audio recordings or in any other form capable of suggesting words or ideas”.

The Anti-Fake News Act is a very draconian law in a way and if the powers that be have any intention of abolishing or modifying it, they need to look at several aspects.

For one thing, some of the provisions in this Act merely replicate other laws. I say this based on the illustrations for Section 4.

Here is Illustration (e): “A publishes a statement in his social media account that a food product of Z’s company contains harmful ingredients and is being sold to the public knowing that the production of the food product has been discontinued several years ago and the food product is no longer sold to the public. A is guilty of an offence under this section.”

And there is Illustration (f ): “A creates a website impersonating a government agency’s website. In the website, A publishes a guideline purportedly issued by the head of the government agency which requires the public to apply for a licence to carry out a particular activity. There is no such guideline issued by the government agency. A is guilty of an offence under this section.”

It is very clear and obvious that these circumstances are already covered by the law of defamation or malicious falsehoods under civil law. So why is there a need to classify this as fake news, which has the effect of criminalising the offence?

Besides, there are already provisions in the Penal Code (Chapter XXI, Section 499) that cover criminal defamation.

Furthermore, the Printing Presses And Publications Act 1984 covers similar situations. This Act provides for punishment of a prison term not exceeding three years or a fine not exceeding RM20,0000 or both.

In comparison, a conviction under the AntiFake News Act can result in imprisonment of up to six years or a fine of up to RM500,000 or both.

There is also Section 211(1) of the Communications And Multimedia Act 1998: “No content applications service provider, or other person using a content applications service, shall provide content which is indecent, obscene, false, menacing, or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person.”

Apart from the fact that the offences are in reality and for all practical purposes the same, there is a considerable difference in terms of the punishment.

The penalty under the Trade Descriptions Act 1972 is only a fine not exceeding RM100,000. On the other hand, the punishment under the Communications And Multimedia Act is much more than under any of the other Acts.

It is not in the interest of good governance and justice to cover the same subject under different Acts and to provide different remedies or punishments for the same wrongdoing.

It is as if the MPs who voted to pass the Anti-Fake News Bill were not even aware of the country’s laws. Of course, it might well be that some of these MPs were more focused on other matters at the time.

Any comments or suggestions for points of discussion can be sent to mavico7@yahoo. com. The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.