Fahmi’s order hollow as cyberbully fined RM100

 

Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil’s open order to the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) to take urgent action against false news, online scams, and cyberbullying rings hollow.

This is after a cyberbully got away with a fine of RM100 in a case where a girl was driven to suicide by allegations thrown against her.

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.

It reads: “Any person who uses any indecent, threatening, abusive, or insulting words, or behaves in a threatening or insulting manner, or posts up or affixes or exhibits any indecent, threatening, abusive, or insulting written paper or drawing with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding RM100”.

Just imagine, the maximum penalty is just a fine of RM100 under this Act. The magistrate had no choice but to hand this sentence down. Predictably, Shalini pleaded guilty.

The victim was Rajeswary Appahu, better known as Esha, whose mother lamented tearfully after the sentencing that Shalini should have been jailed, not just fined.

Indeed, if the cyberbullying was that serious to cause a person to take her own life, she should have been jailed. Were there no other laws that could have been used to hand down a more severe sentence?

At least 2 harsher laws available

Incredibly, there are at least two and it’s a wonder why the legal authorities - the police and the public prosecutor - thought it fit not to use them. And for Fahmi, who appears to be the official spokesperson for the Madani government, the question to get to the bottom of, is why they were not used.

The first law is the Penal Code. Section 503 on Criminal intimidation says: “Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation, or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation”.

Section 506 sets out the punishment: “Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and if the threat is to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both”.

That implies a fine and two years in jail for the offence and in the case where the chastity of a woman is questioned, to seven years, a more suitable penalty for a serious offence.

And then there is Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, which comes under the MCMC, and therefore under Fahmi, who may want to openly direct the MCMC to press new charges. This states:

(1) A person who - 

(a) by means of any network facilities or network service or applications service knowingly - 

(i) makes, creates, or solicits;  and

(ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion or other communication which is obscene, indecent, false, menacing, or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person; or 

(b) initiates a communication using any applications service, whether continuously, repeatedly or otherwise, during which communication may or may not ensue, with or without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at any number or electronic address, commits an offence. 

(2) A person who knowingly - 

(a) by means of a network service or applications service provides any obscene communication for commercial purposes to any person; or

(b) permits a network service or applications service under the person’s control to be used for an activity described in paragraph (a), commits an offence. 

(3) A person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable to a fine not exceeding RM50,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or both, and shall also be liable to a further fine of RM1,000 for every day during which the offence is continued after conviction.

This provides for a maximum jail sentence of a year and a fine of a maximum of RM50,000, or both, and would also have provided the avenue for a much heavier sentence than that paltry fine of RM100.

That was the maximum under the 1955 Minor Offences Act, a piece of legislation almost 70 years old. Although it was revised in 1987, that is still 37 years ago.

Why use Minor Offences Act?

Let’s be absolutely clear about this - what allowed Shalini to get away with less than a rap on the knuckles for this was not a lack of appropriate legislation but the use of inappropriate legislation. 

It was not a lack of cyberbullying legislation which led to this, although there is a case for appropriate legislation for cyberbullying which is becoming increasingly prevalent.

The question to ask: What prompted the public prosecutor to take this way out in such a high-profile case? That allowed the perpetrator of a serious offence which contributed to suicide to walk away smiling and smirking?

Meanwhile, all the parent of the victim could do was cry out in anguish at the injustice of it all.

There is a lot of legislation in this country and many of them are wide-encompassing. In the hands of the wrong person, they can be abused as Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim himself can testify. 

And if the legal system is compromised, some can get away even when they commit serious crimes. The answer is to put people of unquestioned integrity in charge of such matters and to make them independent of the executive so they are free of pressure.

Fahmi must take cognisance of these if he wants to bring genuine change to the country instead of giving hollow open orders which don’t mean much. We need a system which brings people to account at all levels - for that we need good people. - Mkini

---

P GUNASEGARAM says lack of integrity, honesty and competency are the roots of most Malaysian problems.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.