When Music Meets Morality: The 1975 and the Limits of Expression in Malaysia

 

In July 2024, a music festival in Malaysia became the epicenter of an international free speech debate. British band The 1975 was scheduled to perform at the Good Vibes Festival, a major annual music event in Kuala Lumpur. But what started as a night of entertainment quickly escalated into a political firestorm.

During the performance, frontman Matty Healy openly criticized Malaysia’s anti-LGBTQ+ laws and then kissed his male bandmate on stage. The gesture, while applauded by some internationally as an act of defiance, was viewed domestically as a blatant disrespect of local values and laws. The Malaysian government responded by immediately canceling the remainder of the festival, and the band was swiftly banned from performing in the country again.

The aftermath didn’t stop there. The event organizers filed a lawsuit against the band for breach of contract, and social media was flooded with debates around cultural respect, artistic freedom, and national law.

But beyond the controversy lies a deeper question: What does this incident tell us about freedom of speech in Malaysia?

Cultural Sensitivities vs Global Norms

Malaysia is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious country where laws are heavily influenced by religious and cultural considerations. LGBTQ+ content is restricted in mainstream media, and public expressions that challenge conservative norms are often swiftly reprimanded.

To some Malaysians, Healy’s actions felt less like advocacy and more like an imposition of foreign values. To others, it was a moment of much-needed confrontation with uncomfortable truths.

Freedom of Expression: A Conditional Right?

Malaysia’s Constitution provides for freedom of speech under Article 10—but with limitations. Expression that threatens public order, morality, or national security can be restricted. This gives authorities wide discretion in determining what crosses the line.

In the case of The 1975, the performance was viewed as a threat to public morality, prompting immediate action. This response reflects a pattern in Malaysian governance: freedom of expression is tolerated only within certain culturally defined boundaries.

The Global Artist’s Dilemma

The incident also raises the question: Should international artists conform to local laws, or use their platform to challenge them? While Healy’s intent may have been to show solidarity with Malaysia’s LGBTQ+ community, the backlash highlights how activism, if perceived as disrespect, can alienate the very people it aims to support.

Final Thoughts

The 1975 controversy is not just about a kiss or a concert—it’s a snapshot of a larger conversation Malaysia is having with itself and the world. It forces us to ask: Where should the line be drawn between freedom and respect, expression and imposition?

As Malaysia continues to navigate its identity in a globalized world, moments like these will keep surfacing. The hope is not for silence—but for a dialogue that bridges the gap between tradition and change.

Drawing the Line on Free Speech and the 3Rs in Malaysia

 How Race, Religion and Royalty Shape What We Can, or Can't Say.

The invisible line which comes in the form of Freedom of Expression in Malaysia, is fully protected under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. 

Yet when it comes to the 3Rs (race, religion, royalty), that freedom is faced by an invisible boundaries, drawn by both law and cultural expectation.  These terms can be deemed as sensitive to the point that it can be exploited and may lead to political unrest. 

This article exposes how the Sedititon Act 1948 Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, and emerging digital regulations regulate discourse on these sensitive topics. We will look at the legal framework, and understand if it's actually legal framework to protect unity or to silence dissent? 

Sedition Act 1948
A colonial era legislation, this act criminalizes any form of speech that may excite discontent or contempt towards (specific) race, religion or royalty. Even nonviolent criticism, like questioning Malay privileges or the monarchy's role, can be deemed as seditious.

Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA)
This act covers on online speech, particularlu under Section 233, which prohibits any form of "offensive" or "menancing" content. Back in 2019, a Facebook user was arrested for uploading content deemed as an insult to Islam under his provision.

Facebook User Arrested for Insulting Islam (2019)
For context, in March 2019, a Malaysian Facebook user known as "Ayea Yea", was pleaded guilty and sentenced to an unprecedented 10 years and 10 months locked up in prison. Due to his actions for posting content considered insulting to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. 

The charges pressed on him included multiple counts under Section 298A of the Penal Code (anti-religious activities) and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998 (misuse of network facilities). 

Under this law, those who are guilty due to blasphemous rhetoric can be charged with a jail term of 2-5 years. As for the other, the charges will carry out a maximum one year in prison or a fine up to RM50,000 ($12,200), or both consecutively. This case is significant, not only due to its harsh prison sentence but also because it marks the CMA being used to police/control religious speech online.

As for other ongoing legal updates, it continues in the year of 2023 until now.

Narrowing the Sedition Act to Royalty (2023)
Minister Azalina Othman Said proposed amending the Sedition Act to target only insults towards royalty on July 25 2023. She announced that the Cabinet agreed “in principle” to amend the Sedition Act 1948 so it would only protect the royal institution, instead of covering broader topics like race and religion. 

She highlighted that this move was an outcome of dialogues on the “3R issues”. Critics, like Lawyers for Liberty, warn that even this narrowed act remains overly vague, claiming it could still be a tool for suppression

The Online Safety Bill (2024) 

This bill passed the Senate (Dewan Negara) in December 2024. It is designed to complement the CMA by empowering the regulator (MCMC) to address harmful content online. This includes content related to race, religion, and royalty. 

One notable measure mandates platforms to let users appeal against content takedown decisions. The Bill also requires licensed platforms to take stronger action against harmful content and provide safety tools, especially for minors.

New Social Media Licensing (2025) 

Starting January 1, 2025, all social media platforms and messaging services with 8 million or more Malaysian users must obtain a license under the Communications and Multimedia (Licensing) Regulations.

• Platforms must follow strict Code of Conduct guidelines, local moderation teams is maintained, assisting investigations, and removing harmful content.

• WeChat and TikTok were among the first to receive licenses, while Telegram is still finalizing its application. Major players like Facebook, X, and YouTube have yet to comply.

• Meta (Facebook/Instagram) criticized the licensing scheme for lacking clarity and potentially stifling innovation.

Real‑Life Cases, When Speech Crosses the Line.

Zunar’s Arrest under the Sedition Act (2015-2017)

Zulkiflee Anwar Haque, widely known as Zunar, is a Malaysian cartoonist recognized for using satire to comment on political issues and the monarchy. 

Between 2015 and 2016, he faced multiple charges under the Sedition Act after sharing cartoons and tweets critical of the government and judiciary. He was at risk of a lengthy jail sentence—over 40 years in total.

In 2016, authorities shut down one of his exhibitions and seized his artworks. But in 2017, a court ruled that this action was unlawful and awarded Zunar RM18,000 (around $4,225.36) compensation. He was eventually cleared of all charges in 2018. His experience reflects the tight restrictions placed on artistic and political expression in Malaysia.

“Allah” Ruling: Religious Rights vs. Public Reaction (2021)

In 2021, the High Court ruled that non-Muslims in Malaysia have the right to use the word "Allah" in their religious publications, declaring the 1986 ban unconstitutional. However, this was a legal win for Christian and indigenous communities. This decision sparks backlash from Muslim groups led the government to appeal, illustrating public sensitivity.

Initially, the government announced plans to appeal, but in 2023, it decided to withdraw. 

The backlash revealed how emotionally charged religious language can be in Malaysia. On social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Malaysians were deeply divided—some welcomed the decision, while others saw it as a threat to religious purity.

Harmony vs. Honest Dialogue under Cultural Context 

Malaysia’s multicultural and multi-faith nation Malaysia’s identity as a multi-ethnic and multi-religious nation makes it unique—but also complex when it comes to open dialogue. Laws around race, religion, and royalty (the 3Rs) are intended to keep society peaceful. 

Yet critics argue that these laws are often used to avoid uncomfortable conversations about Bumiputera affirmative action, the role of Sharia within a secular system, or the monarchy’s political influence. A societal divide continues, some argue these measures preserve stability to avoid chaos, while others say they stifle truth and reform.

The Future of Speech and the 3Rs

With changes to the Sedition Act in 2023, by narrowing down to focus only on royalty, leaving out race and religion, will somewhat restore balance, or limit scrutiny further?  

While this appears to reduce the scope of the law, many remain concerned that criticism of royalty could still be penalized under vague definitions.

Tighter controls on online safety and licensing regulations has been established. The government passed the Online Safety Bill, which gives more power to Malaysia’s internet regulator (MCMC) to remove harmful or sensitive content.

Starting in 2025, large social media platforms operating in Malaysia must apply for a government license. This includes Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, and others.

These changes mean that platforms may start policing content more aggressively, especially when it involves the 3Rs. Many fear this will cause people to censor themselves online, even before any law is broken.

As for the Allah Case, it comes as a symbol of a larger issues. The public reaction to the “Allah” debate offers a microcosm of how deeply emotional and unresolved these issues remain—suggesting that reform may be more cultural than solely legal.

But... Can We Speak Freely Now?

The 3Rs remain the most guarded areas of public discourse in Malaysia. Their protection reflects the country's commitment to national unity and cultural respect.  While laws exist to promote peace and unity, they often limit meaningful discussion and silence those who wish to challenge the status quo.

The future of free speech in Malaysia depends on whether society can find a middle ground, protecting mutual respect while encouraging open, honest conversations. Until that balance is found, people will continue to speak with caution, especially when their words touch the invisible boundaries of the 3Rs.

Sources:

• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/3/9/malaysian-jailed-for-more-than-10-years-for-insulting-islam
• https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2023/07/25/azalina-cabinet-agrees-to-restrict-sedition-act-to-only-royalty-issues/81670
• https://www.rahmatlim.com/perspectives/articles/29689/mykh-online-safety-bill-2024-enhancing-online-safety-in-malaysia
• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/4/3/malaysia-cartoonist-charged-with-sedition-over-tweets
• https://theedgemalaysia.com/article/high-court-rules-use-word-allah-nonmuslims-all-over-malaysia-allowed
  
  

Written by Raihan.

Punishment or Bullying? The Media Ethics and Legal Gray Areas in the Alice and Adeline Case

Today, social media has become a modern public court, where a short video or a picture can turn an average person into a national headline overnight. The case of "Alice and Adeline" in 2025 reignited Malaysia's public debate about freedom of speech, cyberbullying, public morality, and media responsibility.

Alice Chang was fired from Auntie's after a viral video showed her mishandling food. Her later observations working at other brands, like Cold Stone Creamery and Nando's, sparked further outrage and brand controversies. Also, her sister, Adeline, had already become famous because of a ride-hailing altercation and fraud allegations, which fueled the public's interest in the two sisters.

SOURCE: MY HOMETOWN MEDIA

To me, Alice and Adeline have transcended the status of victims. They appear to have mastered the art of converting controversy into public interest. Their sheer persistence in new career endeavors, coupled with Adeline's fiery livestreams, clearly demonstrates their grasp of the fundamental principle: online attention equals value.

Their behavior is no longer accidental but deliberate, intending to stay in the online limelight. While every person has a right to self-expression, converting that into provocation and manipulation of public opinion is a violation of ethical norms.

SOURCE: ORIENTAL DAILY

Although the Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of speech under Article 10(1), Article 10(2) allows Parliament to impose restrictions in the interest of national security, public order, or morality. The main laws relevant to this case are:

• Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA): Under Section 233, it is an offense to use network facilities to knowingly "transmit any comment, request, suggestion or communication which is obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive in character."
• Defamation Act 1957: Public or media statements that are untrue and harmful to one's reputation may be legally actionable under civil law.
• Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA): Sharing someone's identifiable image or data without consent could violate their privacy rights.

The media, including social media users, were instrumental in spreading information regarding the incident. While bringing issues to light may be of value to the public interest, the line between public scrutiny and cyberbullying lowers the perception of justice. Brands must balance human dignity and crisis response too. Were Auntie Anne's and Cold Stone Creamery really committed to food safety, or were they simply reacting to external pressure from the public?

The sage of Alice and Adeline reveals the murky line between freedom of speech and pubic denouncement. We must be more aware as users of social media of whom we support or condemn. As regulators, we must ensure that platforms are not utilized as instruments of unconstrained exposure and e-punishment. And finally, we must ask ourselves: When someone falls, do we lift them up or do we reach for our phones to record? That is not a legal question, that is a moral ONE.

Written by Lee Wei Ee

 

The Right to Protest: Exploring Malaysia’s Legal Framework for Public Dissent

 

In any healthy democracy, the right to protest is a vital expression of public opinion, allowing citizens to voice grievances, demand justice, and influence policy. In Malaysia, however, this right exists in a complex legal framework that balances constitutional freedoms with state control — often sparking debate over what is truly “lawful” dissent.

What Does the Constitution Say?

Malaysia’s Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, assembly, and association under Article 10. Specifically:

• Article 10(1)(b) gives all citizens the right to assemble peacefully and without arms.

• However, Article 10(2)(b) allows Parliament to impose restrictions "in the interest of the security of the Federation or public order."

This means while the right to protest is recognized, it is not absolute — and is often shaped by additional laws and regulations.

The Peaceful Assembly Act 2012

The Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) 2012 is the main piece of legislation governing public protests in Malaysia. The Act was introduced to regulate public gatherings while ostensibly protecting the constitutional right to assemble. Key features of the PAA include:

• Notification, not permission: Organizers must notify the police 5 days in advance, but they do not need to seek approval.

• Restrictions on venue: Protests are banned near schools, hospitals, places of worship, and airports.

• Age restriction: Children under 15 are not allowed to participate in assemblies.

• Responsibility on organizers: Organizers must ensure the protest remains peaceful and do not incite violence or public disorder.

While the law claims to simplify the process of organizing assemblies, critics argue it still grants broad powers to authorities and can be used to suppress dissent.

Challenges in Practice

In practice, the right to protest in Malaysia often comes with police intervention, arrests, or legal threats — especially when demonstrations are critical of the government or touch on sensitive topics like race, religion, or royalty. High-profile cases, such as the Bersih rallies advocating for electoral reform, have seen large-scale crackdowns, with participants detained under various legal provisions.

Furthermore, vague laws like the Sedition Act 1948 and Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 are sometimes used alongside the PAA to intimidate or punish activists, making the legal landscape even more precarious.

Recent Shifts and Ongoing Debates

There have been signs of progress — including court rulings that protect the right to peaceful assembly and dismiss charges against protestors. Civil society groups continue to push for greater freedom, clearer legal safeguards, and the repeal of archaic or ambiguous laws that stifle free expression.

The conversation around protests in Malaysia often mirrors larger tensions between national security and individual freedoms. As Malaysia evolves politically, especially with increasing youth activism and digital mobilization, these debates will only grow louder.

Final Thoughts

The right to protest in Malaysia is legally acknowledged but heavily regulated. Understanding the laws — and their practical implications — is essential for any Malaysian wishing to speak out. Whether you're an activist, student, or concerned citizen, staying informed is the first step to exercising your rights responsibly and effectively.

The Jocelyn Chia Controversy: Free Expression or Public Insensitivity?

Photo: Instagram/ Chiacomedy

In June 2023, a stand-up comedy routine by US-based comedian Jocelyn Chia went viral for all the wrong reasons. In her set, Chia made controversial jokes about Malaysia and the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370—a tragedy that remains a deeply painful wound for many Malaysians.

What followed was swift and intense: public outrage across social media, condemnation from Malaysian officials, and a call for Interpol assistance to locate and investigate the comedian. While Chia later clarified that her material was meant to reflect the tensions in Singapore-Malaysia relations (she holds Singaporean heritage), the damage was done.

This incident reignited a long-standing debate in Malaysia and beyond: Where do we draw the line between free expression and public insensitivity?

Tragedy as Comedy: A Step Too Far?

Comedians often test boundaries—they make people uncomfortable, challenge societal norms, and use satire as a mirror. However, when humor touches on national tragedy, particularly one involving the loss of hundreds of lives, reactions can be visceral.

To many Malaysians, Chia’s joke was not edgy—it was cruel. The MH370 incident isn’t just history; it's an unresolved emotional trauma.

Malaysia’s Response: Overreach or Justified?

Malaysia's government response—seeking Interpol’s help to locate a comedian abroad—raised eyebrows globally. Critics argued that it was an overreach, turning a tasteless joke into an international legal matter.

But to Malaysian authorities, it was about defending national dignity. The outrage wasn’t just public—it was personal, emotional, and deeply cultural.

Free Speech Across Borders

Chia is based in the United States, where the First Amendment strongly protects freedom of speech, including offensive or provocative humor. But when that speech travels across borders—especially to countries with stricter cultural and legal norms—the clash becomes inevitable.

This incident illustrates a difficult truth: Freedom of expression is not interpreted equally everywhere.

Can There Be Responsible Free Speech?

Freedom of expression is a human right, but it comes with social responsibilities—especially when dealing with collective grief. Just because one can say something doesn’t always mean one should.

Rather than censoring, perhaps the answer lies in sensitivity. Creators, artists, and comedians need to be aware of the cultural weight their words carry—especially in a digital world without borders.

Final Thoughts

Jocelyn Chia’s routine may have been an attempt at edgy humor, but it hit a nerve that exposed the complex relationship between comedy, culture, and collective memory.

It’s a reminder that in our pursuit of expressive freedom, empathy should never be an afterthought. Free speech must be protected—but so must human decency.

Is freedom of speech a talisman against cyberbullying?

 In this contemporary era, social media allows everyone to make their views known like never before. This liberty, however, has its complications and caution must be taken. In an exclusive interview with Oriental Daily, the Assistant Minister of Communications of Malaysia, Chong Nien-kwan, shared that cyberbullying is something that has come to be in recent years. Although governments have tried addressing it using laws and policies, it still is a challenging issue.

She discussed how it is complex to define the term cyber bullying. For instance, one side of a dispute may go to the extent of using the Internet to try and execute the other party (internet trial by ordeal). Legally, there are issuers with putting at liberty someone's private details. Hence, the answering of how boundaries are drawn is a sophisticated matter.

Moreover, Chong Nien-Kwan shared that cyber bullying is usually done as a group and not an individual. The act itself gets done collectively but figuring out who becomes the ‘last straw to break the camel’s back’ is often impossible. She noted that in this case, every snowflake is a flake of snow and every snowflake is not innocent.

To combat cyberbullying, Malaysia has added cyberstalking and online harassment to the Penal Code. Nonetheless, Chong has also said that compared to other forms of cybercrimes, defining the parameters of cyber violence is more difficult.

Chong noted that the UK has passed the Cybersecurity Act which gives greater control to British authorities over social media platforms. Malaysia is considering either amending existing legislation or drafting new proposals regarding cyber violence, but no conclusions have been reached.

We tend to forget that the freedom of speech comes with social responsibility. While in the age of the internet, the power of speech is amplified tremendously. Finding the proper balance between one’s self expression and the expression of infringement on another person’s rights is something that needs to be addressed by every internet user.

writtend by LIM CIN SHAN

PMX Cakap Apa !?!

Deepfakes PMX !?!

    Have you ever come across those too-good-to-be-true videos? You know, the ones that scream "get rich quick," promising fast money with minimal effort? I’m just mashing words here, but you get the point. Back in the day, these scams came in the form of shady emails or spammy text messages. But now, with AI crawling into every corner of our digital lives, these scammers have evolved.

    They’re using AI to slide into your WhatsApp chats or flood your TikTok feed with a strangely familiar voice, a well-known face, speaking fluent Bahasa, encouraging you to invest. “Sedagha-sedaghi, kita labur hari ini, esokkk kitaa menang !!.” Even I your 24/7 IT guy glued to the internet struggle to spot the difference sometimes. Now imagine the Gen X crowd, boomers, or even millennials who aren’t as tech-savvy.

PMX Telling Us to Invest More or Is He...?

    In case you’ve been living under a rock (no shame, hermit crabs are cool too), Malaysia is currently under digital attack. Scammers, cybercriminals, and even politically motivated actors are using AI to mimic the voices and faces of Malaysia’s most prominent figures. We're talking about our very own beloved PMX. But it doesn’t stop there. Influencers like Khairul Aming and even the royal family have been deepfaked to promote false narratives, scam schemes, and stir public unrest.

    Don't trust me ? no worries, 

    According to MCMC via FMT reporter:

Statistic On Trend Cases of The Usage of AI

    That’s just for AI-manipulated content. If we’re talking fraud overall, check this stat from Bernama and Marketing-Interactive:

Statistic On Trend Cases of Fraudulent using AI 

    The fraudulent online content involved the use of artificial intelligence (AI) such as deepfakes, impersonation of notable figures, videos, graphics and text.

    Examples? Oh, there are plenty:

    Those are some serious number that are surging up, and are still on the rise. Some of the example of these AI manipulative content:

• A deepfake video of PMX endorsing a fake investment scheme.

PMX is Offering Us Easy Money or Is He ...?

• An AI-generated voice of PMX and Elon Musk promoting cryptocurrency fraud.

AI Anwar Talking to Fake Elon Musk

• A viral AI-generated image claiming illegal mining in a Raub durian farm, which amassed over 100,000 views before being debunked.

AI Image of The So Called Raub Gold Mine

    Now you’re probably wondering: Is this even illegal under speech law?

    I mean, who are you gonna blame? The robot? The software? The machinery?

    Valid question. Tracking down the culprit feels like chasing Leonardo DiCaprio in Catch Me If You Can. But legally? These acts are just as illegal as if you yourself had made the fake account to impersonate those high ranked profile characters.

    Because under the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA):

•     Section 233(1)(a) criminalizes the distribution of false, indecent, or menacing content online intended to harass or deceive. which is literally deepfaking someone for your needs.

    Still not enough? How about the Penal Code:

•     Section 416 – Cheating by personation, which can now include AI impersonations.

•     Section 499 – Criminal defamation. Use AI to damage someone’s reputation? Congrats, you're legally toast.

    Okay, let’s say those laws aren’t enough if you’re caught doing this, you could also be charged under federal law, specifically the Sedition Act 1948:

•     Section 3(1) defines seditious acts as anything that promotes contempt or disaffection against the government or monarchy. So, if your AI makes the YDPA say something false, that’s a full-on criminal offense.

Look these laws may be decades old, but don't underestimate the consequences of going against them.

    But what about freedom of speech whaaaaaa?

    Yes, I can already hear the SJWs smashing their keyboards arguing that this kind of control pulls us backwards as a society! Or that not using AI is like cutting off our own legs because AI is the future, so why not explore it now? Or the classic cry: “What about freedom of speech?”

    Look, this isn’t about banning AI or shutting down citizen voices. It’s about understanding that actions do have consequences. Yes, Malaysia guarantees freedom of speech under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, but it is not absolute. This is qualified freedom meaning it’s subject to restrictions in the interest of national security, public order, or morality.

    Creating AI deepfakes of national leaders to scam or troll? That’s not protected speech. That’s deception, and it comes with serious consequences.

    The Law Can’t Keep Up

    AI tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, ElevenLabs, DeepFaceLab, and OpenAI’s Sora are evolving rapidly. By the time our lawmakers attempt to combat these acts, a dozen new ways to fake reality have already emerged. In Malaysia especially, we lack an AI-specific legal framework. Don’t believe me? No problem trust the word of a law firm established in 2010 with just ten lawyers, which has since grown to become one of the largest corporate law firms in Malaysia, with over 90 lawyers based in Kuala Lumpur.

    Rahmat & Lim states, “There is presently no specific law regulating the use of AI in Malaysia.”

    They also touch upon a guideline outlining seven key principles referred to as the "AI Principles" which will form the basis for AI development.

National Guidelines On Artificial Intelligence Governance and Ethics: Key Principles 

    My message to the government current or future:

    Take this matter seriously. This is the same mistake made by students in the early days of social media they said whatever they felt like, even if it was slanderous, harsh, or intended to ruin someone’s reputation. And in the end, many faced the consequences they deserved.

    We need to learn from past mistakes and look ahead. From where I stand, AI is the future. Our nation’s lawmakers need to stay in touch with this issue and understand the urgent need for AI-specific legislation laws that clearly define and outlaw malicious deepfakes.

    Furthermore, platforms must be held accountable. Tech companies need to detect and remove deepfakes more efficiently. And finally, we, the people, must do our part by raising public awareness especially among older users so they understand that not every familiar voice or face online is real, it all goes back to the all saying "don't trust everything you see on the internet".

I'll end you with this video, explaining some of the tactics used in this type of AI attack:

    If it looks like PMX and sounds like PMX, but he’s offering you a 300% return on bitcoin or NFT, it's probably not him.

Source 

• https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2024/12/04/mcmc-records-huge-increase-in-explicit-ai-generated-content
• https://www.marketing-interactive.com/fraudulent-content-removed-social-media-2024
• https://www.bernama.com/en/news.php?id=2379329
• https://www.rahmatlim.com/perspectives/articles/29210/mykh-national-guidelines-on-artificial-intelligence-governance-and-ethics-key-principles#:~:text=There%20is%20presently%20no%20specific,use%20of%20AI%20in%20Malaysia.
• https://www.suarakeadilan.my/post/lombong-emas-di-balik-kebun-durian-di-raub-palsu-janaan-ai
• https://x.com/biarbetul_rasmi/status/1824055127428530469
• https://x.com/biarbetul_rasmi/status/1874076771928465895
• https://x.com/biarbetul_rasmi/status/1799051698176196918

  Written by Limau Ais (Amal Akmal)

PAS, PKR, BN, SEMUA SAMA !!

Toxicity Is The Game

    Okay, let’s be real here. If you were to ask any Gen-Z or, I mean, any young adult about the current political state in Malaysia, the majority of them would give you a one-word answer: “Toxic.” This is not because of some sort of anti-politic movement taking a turn. This is because the current generation understands that the political state in Malaysia is not driven by democracy, civil liberty, or any call for justice. The current climate of the political spectrum in Malaysia is one of character assassination, not ideas.

    We are not seeing either side using their voice to critique those in power or the misuse of power. We are not seeing a battlefront of ideas where the main objective is for the people. Now the rakyat are paying the price because of this toxic environment created by the current political parties on all sides, where the truth is no longer the main objective, morality is feigned and performative, and slander and lawsuits are the main attraction.

    They may chant “Freedom of Speech” as a slogan, but the rakyat can see the facade behind it as a freedom to defame, outrank, and humiliate. Back in the day, people used to cry out for mature discussion, where the topics revolved around policy, poverty, education, and healthcare. But now that cry has turned into wailing. Just scroll through Twitter (or X, for those who are Elon fanboys), and what do you see?

    Case after case, headline after headline, defamation after defamation. Not in Parliament, God forbid we want those in power to have civil discussions, but in the court of public opinion, followed by actual legal proceedings.

    I’m not picking a side here when I say both the opposition and the current federal government have their feet wet in the same water. Take a look at this:

• Siti Mastura being ordered to pay RM830,000 to DAP leaders in a defamation case.

Siti Mastura, being demand to pay the sum of money

• The Court of Appeal ordered Lim Guan Eng to pay RM250,000 in general damages and RM70,000 in costs to Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim over defamatory statements related to the Penang undersea tunnel project.

Datuk Seri Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim's appeal in his defamation suit against DAP chairman 

• In May 2023, former UMNO leader Khairy Jamaluddin filed a defamation suit against Sungai Besar UMNO chief Jamal Md Yunos over allegations of orchestrating 'phantom delegates' during a party assembly, seeking RM1 million in damages.

Former Umno leader Khairy Jamaluddin has filed a suit against Sungai Besar Umno chief Datuk Seri Jamal Md Yunos for RM1 million over alleged defamation.

Or the recent one,

• Kamarul Zaman paying RM400,000 to Hannah Yeoh for slandering her religious intent.

Kamarul Zaman, being demand to pay the sum of money

    This Is All Of Them

    People, can you see that these kinds of cases are not meant to hold someone accountable for a so-called failed policy or broken manifesto? These types of cases are just ad hominem attacks, lies, attacking the messenger not the message. Trying to get that political gotcha moment. And what saddens me is that this is not just one party. This is all of them. Barisan/UMNO, PH, PN, PAS, Bersatu. They all have blood on their hands.

    The current federal government is no saint either. One day your voice is the loudest, asking for reform, pleading the case for the rakyat. The next day there are investigations, sedition probes, or mysterious political funding scandals. Let’s not pretend the current administration walks on water. These types of cases vanish into silence after they’re in power.

Don’t believe me? No worries. Believe all these news outlets reporting the same thing:

• The High Court dismissed Lim Guan Eng’s defamation suit against Tan Teik Cheng and The Star, ordering Lim to pay RM20,000 to Tan and RM30,000 to The Star in costs.

Just dismissed . . . 

• Ahmad Zahid granted discharge not amounting to acquittal of all 47 charges

47 cases gone . . .

Where is the policy here?

    I mean, in a healthy democracy, the system of checks and balances is the pillar of Parliament, conducted by the current opposition. But here, we see the federal government and the opposition as two peas in a pod, digging graves for each other. Instead of shadow budgets, we get shadow rumors. Instead of facts and figures, we get social media threads full of half-truths and cherry-picked Quran verses. And we, the rakyat, are left watching like kids in kindergarten fighting and calling names.

    These fights consist of many subjects, even playing around with the 3Rs. It’s like the 3Rs have become the slogan for a quick, grabby attention, gotcha moment for engagement.

Don’t believe me? Fine. Let the statistics talk:

• According to Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Ismail, from 2020 to 2022, a total of 255 individuals were investigated under the Sedition Act, with only four cases charged in court. In 2023, the number of investigations under the Sedition Act rose to 94, with only eight cases resulting in charges.

This data indicates a significant number of sedition-related investigations in recent years, with a notable increase around general election periods.

• Every Prime Minister of Malaysia has faced at least one defamation complaint since 2009, usually from political opponents. These lawsuits are frequently used as a way to vindicate reputations or mute criticism.

Defamation suits are a common occurrence among Malaysian politicians.

• SUARAM’s 2024 Human Rights Report states that the Sedition Act, Section 233 CMA, and the PPPA continued to be significant tools to restrict freedom of expression in 2024. Their continued implementation showed swifter prosecutions under the Sedition Act and ongoing targeting of journalists and activists.

    These statistics show the sheer hypocrisy of the phrase “Freedom of Speech” because in fact, freedom of speech is not free. It is licensed, leased, litigated, and in rare cases, just the usage of this “freedom” is enough to destroy one’s career.

    In recent years, we’ve seen many of these legal actions taken against PAS MPs. Need I remind all these Malay-Muslim parties that clothe themselves in turbans and thobes, yet still indulge in what is clearly against the teachings of their religion and culture?

“O you who have believed, avoid much (negative) assumption. Indeed, some assumption is sin. And do not spy or backbite each other. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his brother when dead? You would detest it.”

(Al-Hujurat, 49:12)

    Let’s be frank here. Slander, lies, cherry-picking, misquotations, misrepresentation against fellow Muslims, against women supposedly promoting Christianity with zero evidence, all wrapped up in the so-called veneer of religion. This is against what the Prophet taught, what the Quran preaches, and against the whole damn religion.

Honestly, what are we doing here?

    Honestly, I don’t care about these lawsuits, slanders, or lies being thrown from every corner. What I’m critical about is the silence of people who were once regarded as ambassadors of the rakyat’s voice, but when placed in charge of Parliament, went dead silent. Not even a peep. I’m not barraging the current government coalition alone. I’m saying this to all of them. Every major party in Malaysia has had a chance to rule this country, and it all turned out the same. It’s like there's a normalization of staying quiet for the truth!

    Please don’t turn our democracy into defame-cracy. We need to demand better. Hold our leaders accountable not just for corruption, but for their cowardice in fighting over identities instead of ideas. For proposing boycotts instead of budgets. Instead of manipulating the rakyat for votes, they should be able to stand in Parliament and disagree without defaming.

    Let’s not wait for the next lawsuit to ask ourselves what went wrong. Because we already know.

Source 

• https://x.com/rafiziramli/status/1913048413039661418
• https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2025/01/23/siti-mastura-pays-rm830k-pending-appeal-in-defamation-case-by-dap-leaders
• https://theedgemalaysia.com/node/679361?utm_source=chatgpt.com
• https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2023/05/29/khairy-sues-jamal-yunos-for-defamation-over-phantom-delegates-allegation-seeks-rm1m-in-damages/71493?utm_source=chatgpt.com
• https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2025/05/30/uum-lecturer-to-appeal-rm400k-defamation-ruling
• https://international.astroawani.com/malaysia-news/penang-high-court-dismisses-lim-guan-engs-lawsuit-against-tan-teik-cheng-star-424883?utm_source=chatgpt.com
• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/4/malaysia-drops-corruption-case-against-deputy-prime-minister
• https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2023/02/28/sedition-act-367-probed-only-five-charged-since-2018-says-home-minister?utm_source=chatgpt.com
• https://time.com/6278923/malaysia-politics-defamation-lawsuits/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
• https://www.suaram.net/post/launch-of-suara-rakyat-malaysia-s-suaram-malaysia-human-rights-report-overview-2024?utm_source=chatgpt.com
• https://quran.com/49?startingVerse=12

Written by Limau Ais (Amal Akmal)

AI's Breaking the Law, Is Anything Even Real Anymore?

It’s undeniable that AI (Artificial Intelligence) is becoming more present in our daily lives—on social media, in news articles, memes, and more. AI-generated content, especially images and videos, is spreading rapidly, and Malaysian netizens are not immune to its effects. The technology has become so advanced that sometimes, it’s hard to tell what’s real and what’s generated. And that’s where the problem begins.

A few days ago, I came across an ad on YouTube with a fake thumbnail showing political figure Tun Mahathir being “arrested” by police officers, paired with a clickbait title like “You wouldn’t believe what he said” and “Everyone was shocked by Mahathir’s words.” This was clearly fake news, but it looked real enough to fool someone scrolling by. That’s the danger of AI-generated content; it can blur the line between truth and fiction, especially when it’s used for political propaganda.

This clearly violates some of the laws of freedom of speech and expression.

Like the Sedition Act 1948, as the advertisement uses an AI-generated image of a famous political figure to spread fake content that incites hatred or unrest. Politically motivated misinformation like this is seen as contributing to public discontent or undermining the government’s credibility.

Besides that, the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA) is also included, as it involves the spreading of fake news. The CMA bans content that is false, offensive, or indecent, especially when posted online to harass or deceive. Technically, fake AI content could be prosecuted under this act. BUT, when AI creates harmful content, it’s unclear who’s responsible—the person who posted it, the AI tool that generated it, or the platform hosting it? The waters are still muddy when it comes to AI, and these laws don’t clearly address how AI-generated content fits in.

Let's not forget the Defamation law (Libel), where generated AI images or deepfakes are spread and posted online, damaging one’s reputation, even though it's not true or real. Under the Penal Code (Section 499), creating or sharing false content that harms a person’s reputation can lead to legal action.

Just look at what happened in Johor recently: A male student allegedly used AI to generate explicit images of female classmates. 38 people have been identified as victims, with the youngest reportedly only 12 or 13 years old. They had their faces attached to pornographic content and shared online. The school responded, police got involved, and the Deputy Communications Minister called for stronger digital safety laws. But it’s clear the damage had already been done, leaving the victims' reputation permanently tarnished.

It’s heartbreaking, and it shows how damaging AI misuse can be—not just to reputations, but to people’s mental health and safety. Once this kind of content is out there, it’s nearly impossible to fully erase it. Malaysia has established the National Guidelines on AI Governance and Ethics (AIGE) back in 2024, designed to ensure responsible, safe, and ethical integration of AI. But these recent events show that current protections aren’t enough, and there is still no specific law regulating the use of AI in Malaysia.

Thus, What Needs to Change?

• New laws specifically targeting AI-generated content

• Stricter restrictions from AI platforms to prevent sexual, racist, or misleading content

• Clearer accountability for when harm is caused 

At the end of the day, AI should be here to inspire people, not ruin lives or spread lies. If we want to use it responsibly, the authorities and government need to step up. AI isn't going away anytime soon, but the way we deal with it has to change.

Sources

https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2025/04/12/deepfake-porn-incident-involving-johor-students-highlights-need-for-digital-safety-protocols-in-malaysian-schools-says-teo-nie-ching/172853

https://mastic.mosti.gov.my/publication/the-national-guidelines-on-ai-governance-ethics/

https://www.deloitte.com/southeast-asia/en/services/consulting-risk/perspectives/my-aige-guidelines.html

Written by Nicole