| LAW 342 CYBER LAW HOW OUR LAW PROTECT THE VALUE OF INFORMATION BY: BACHELOR OF LAW (LL.B.)
INTRODUCTION The information superhighway is a complex, growing mesh of thousands of computer networks, with an almost seamless global exchange of text, video images and sound. Today's leading information highway is the Internet, a rapidly growing worldwide network of computers. There are approximately 150 million people who use the Internet at present, in 146 countries. Internet is in the public domain. Nobody owns it and nobody charges a fee for its use (ISPs merely charge a limited fee for access to their computer). Internet content -- everything from books to music, law to terrorism -- is exploding spectacularly. Without any prospect of profit, thousands of individuals have put millions of pages on line. Yet legislators have failed to keep up with the new technology. As information becomes a key source of value, we must have proper legal systems and rules to protect its accuracy. There are still significant weaknesses in our law for the proper protection of information. Does our existing laws -– the Penal Code, Sedition Act, Defamation Act, Broadcasting Act, Printing Presses and Publications Act, Official Secret Act (OSA) and Internal Security Act (ISA) -– effective in combatting untrue and false information? Or do we need to introduce new laws to deal with them? Does the introduction of Communications and Multimedia Act to replace Telecommunication Act and Broadcasting Act necessary?[1] The main aim of this assignment is therefore, to look into situations where our existing laws were used to curb false and misleading information, and also different views on the need to introduce new laws and/or to review current existing laws in order to restore their relevancy.
CHARGED UNDER EXISTING LAWS On 24 September 1998, four people were charged with incitement under Section 505(b) of the Penal Code for spreading rumors on the Internet about communal riots. They were tried separately in the year 1999. On 7 August 1998, "news" appeared on the Internet, which is widely used in Malaysia, about riots in the Chow Kit area of Kuala Lumpur. The riots were said to have involved attacks by Indonesian migrant workers armed with machetes against ethnic Chinese or Malays (there were different versions of the reports). Given the attention in the Malaysian press to anti-Chinese violence in Indonesia, the "news" set off a wave of panic-buying in Kuala Lumpur and traffic jams as people tried to get out. In fact, there were no riots, and police later detained four people suspected of circulating the stories. On 17 August 1998, after the four, all ethnic Chinese, had been arrested, the Attorney General warned that anyone who disseminated false information over the Internet could be charged under a number of laws, including the Sedition Act, Defamation Act, Broadcasting Act as well as the new Communications and Multimedia Act. He added that the police also had the right to detain offenders under the Internal Security Act without consulting the Attorney General. According to the Internet service provider, Mimos Bhd, the four had pretended to be members of different ethnic groups depending on the ethnicity of the recipients of their messages. The government had asked Mimos to help police with their investigation into the source of the rumors, and Mimos obliged by providing confidential identification details of the four. It told the press that it would not invade the privacy of its users without specific reasons, such as a "request by authorities". The four faced the maximum two years’ jail and fine when convicted. The Home Ministry could use the Printing Presses and Publications Act to restrict the circulation of any local publication. On 1 March 2000 for example, it restricted Harakah to two issues per month, down from twice weekly, and banned it from newsstands. But can the ministry use the same law to restrict the information on the Internet? The Minister for Energy, Communications, and Multimedia stated that Harakah's online edition also would be limited to two issues per month (although the ministry had repeatedly said that the government would not interfere with the Internet).
TOTAL FREEDOM ON THE INTERNET? Some people believed that total freedom exists on the Internet. They believed by publishing materials on the Internet they can escaped from the laws that scared away the traditional mass media. No, actually there is no complete freedom on the Internet. The only advantage that the Internet have over the traditional media in Malaysia is that the Internet publication need not apply for a publication license from the government. But they still face all the other restrictive laws that keep the mainstream media in check: there is the Internal Security Act, the Official Secrets Act, laws against sedition, libel and defamation, and contempt of court -- just to name a few.
THE NEED TO REVIEW THE CURRENT MEDIA LAWS Malaysia is set to review the current media laws to make them more relevant and effective to curb false information on the Internet. On 16 April 2001, Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, during his speech in parliament on the Third Outline Perspective Plan (2001-2010), announced that the government was prepared to revise current media laws, including the Printing Presses and Publication Act. Describing the Act -- which bans the publication of malicious news and empowers the government to stop or restrict the circulation of local publications -- as not effective in combatting false information in the Internet, he said the government will find ways to restore its relevancy. Dr Mahathir condemned the Internet news provider over the fabrication of stories, saying they did not care about accuracy when covering news on Malaysia. He cited reports of rampant rioting in the country when the incidences were isolated and contained, adding that the Internet news provider could undermine the nation's economy without being punished.[2] Dr Leo Moggie, who is the Minister of Energy, Communications and Multimedia, said the nation's cyber-laws were outdated and had to be replaced with new ones by the end of the year. Among the laws being reviewed was the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. Dr Leo Moggie said the Government needed laws to check those who used the Internet to spread false information, adding that the existing laws do not apply to the usage of Internet and did not provide protection against invasion of privacy and cyber security in the Government and private sector. Dr Chandra Muzaffar, a social activist, has urged the Prime Minister to explain the proposed changes while calling for the setting up of an independent council to monitor the Internet to ensure fair and objective reporting. Opposition party leader Lim Kit Siang denounced the government's move, saying that any clampdown on the information in the Internet could jeopardize the country's Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) project. A key tenet of the MSC Bill of Guarantee is that there will be no censorship of the Internet. However, according to Parliamentary Secretary of the Energy, Communications and Multimedia Ministry, the government does not plan to regulate or control Internet content when the Communications and Multimedia Act is due for review. The ministry’s parliamentary secretary Chia Kwang Chye said only clauses related to technological development in the IT industry would be reviewed. As far as Internet usage is concerned the ministry’s approach is more to educate users, such as parents, of the softwares available to prevent their children from viewing undesirable sites. However, he said it was fair to prosecute those who abuse the Internet. Malaysia have already existing laws such as the Sedition Act, Defamation Act, and Printing Presses and Publications Act to handle that. His comments are in keeping with the government’s guarantee of no Internet censorship. In Parliament last year Chia Kwang Chye told the House that although there are strict guidelines against the spread of lies and defamatory statements through the medium, the government remains firm that it will not censor any information on the Internet. However, this appears to contradict Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Dr Rais Yatim’s statement that the government will "unleash another set of missiles" on Internet publications that threaten the country’s security. Dr Rais said details of the planned assault are a secret until the "missiles" are launched. That de facto law minister also said laws pertaining to crimes in virtual space have to be streamlined to catch up with the rapidly changing scenario and a task force is already studying the matter.[3]
CENSORSHIP Censorship has long been a controversial issue between local authorities and civil rights groups. With the restrictive Printing Presses and Publications Act hanging over the print and broadcast media, many dissenting voices have resorted to the Internet to publish their views. These view are protected by Section 3(3) of the Communications and Multimedia Act which reads: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting the censorship of the Internet".
SETTING UP A NATIONAL COMMITTEE The Energy, Communications and Multimedia Ministry is studying the possibility of setting up a National Internet Advisory Committee to coordinate and supervise the use of Internet in the country. The ministry's Parliamentary Secretary, Chia Kwang Chye, said the committee would act as the highest authority responsible for drawing up policies, enacting laws and monitoring the use of Internet. Although the government was firm in its stand not to censor the contents of materials in the Internet, the users should not post slanderous, lies or unsightly items. Offenders can be charged under Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 and are liable to be fined not more than RM50,000 or jailed for not more than one year or both, if convicted.
ACCESS DENIED One more way in which our law "protect" the accuracy of information over the Internet is by prohibiting the Internet journalists from making the news in the first place. In March 2002, journalists from the Internet newspaper Malaysiakini and Web radio RadiqRadio were denied access to the press gallery in Parliament to cover the proceedings, on the basis that they had not been accredited by the Information Ministry. For Parliament to make such a decision flies in the face of democratic practice, to which the media makes a crucial contribution. The Information Ministry continues to withhold accreditation of journalists working in the Internet medium because they are not part of the traditional media. The stance is as outdated as it is ignorant of the journalist’s role and functions. It is also in conflict with legal provisions that guarantee there will be no censorship of information on the Internet. In the first place, information can only be made available if the journalists concerned do not encounter official barriers to news gathering.
CONCLUSION In conclusion, over the last few years we have seen a number of developments taking place in our country in relation to the legal systems and rules on the Internet. Clearly there will inevitably be a conflict between other legal concepts (such as freedom of speech) and the legal control of what can be said and done on the Internet. The recent attempts by the government to enact a Communications and Multimedia Act to replace the Telecommunication Act and the Broadcasting Act is one example of this. The Internet provides such ease of publication that the key in the future may not be access to information, but rather credibility and accuracy of the information. With mounds of restrictive laws, will anyone pay attention? Being an impeccable source would be extremely important. In a world with easy publication and no generally restrictive laws, there will still be a great incentive to be accurate if one wants to be taken seriously. That may be better protection for the value of information than law ever provided.
REFERENCES: "Code of content to overcome abuse of the Internet". New Straits Times. 31 May 2001. Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. "Harakah dua kali sebulan". Berita Harian. 2 Mac 2000. Ministry of Energy, Communications & Multimedia. [http://www.ktkm.gov.my/] "National Internet Advisory Panel may be set up". The Star. 30 May 2001. "Penyebar berita palsu Internet boleh didakwa". Utusan Malaysia. 18 Ogos 1998. [1] The newly introduced Act covers communications over the electronic media but not the print media. It also does not affect the general application of existing laws on national security, illegal content, defamation and copyright. Such laws are still applicable to all forms of content, regardless of the medium. [2] Ethnic clashes broke out in March 2001 in a run-down district near Kuala Lumpur and six people were killed. The information in the Internet contradict the official figures over the number of people killed. Police are investigating the people behind the false information for sedition for having suggested that the death toll is higher. [3] News of the government’s intention to curb inaccurate information in the Internet first came about when Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad proposed a review of the existing media laws, such as the Printing Presses and Publications Act. Following this, Dr Rais Yatim had said that new laws would be introduced to cleanse the Internet of inaccurate information. The government is expected to introduce an amendment bill to the Printing Presses and Publications Act. The amendments could include licensing provisions for Internet news providers. Copyright © 2002 Mohamad Syafizan, All rights reserved. |