The Malaysian government is making a controversial move, taking legal steps to implement an “internet killswitch”.
It’s what it sounds like: a tool for cutting internet access during theoretically critical situations. This proposal, still undergoing some form of public debate, has naturally caused concerns regarding censorship and the future of digital freedoms in the country. The first steps in the program began on August 1st.
Formally announced on July 27th, Malaysia’s government claims that the “killswitch” is a necessary step to curb rising Cybercrime.
The announcement initially garnered some attention, but its significance has grown in light of ongoing international discussions. Such killswitches exemplify a major point of concern as the UN approves its controversial “Cybercrime Treaty” this week (expect an article on this, too).
However, as seen in other countries that have made the similar anti-Cybercrime claims, it could be a tool for overreach, stifling free expression, and limiting access to information.
Given the path that the Malaysian government has gone down in recent years, these concerns are well-founded.
Similar mechanisms are used in countries like India and Turkey, often used in attempts to mask blatant human rights abuses or stifle organizing. While Malaysia’s track record on human rights isn’t as widely criticized, there are still numerous cases of concern, and the new laws could signal a shift towards even more restrictive policies.
Specifics of the Proposed Legislation:
The measures in Malaysia involve requiring social media platforms with over eight million users in the country to apply for licenses under existing censorship laws that have been in place since 1998 (and broadly considered outdated). The requirements were introduced in a memo distributed by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission on July 27th entitled, New Regulatory Framework For A Safer Internet For Children And Families.
The formal vote will be held by Malaysia’s parliament in October. The proposed changes, enforceable from January 1st 2025, also come packaged with a broader push to update the country’s Criminal Procedure Code, as well as its “Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorism Financing and Proceeds of Unlawful Activities Act”.
The government argues these measures are necessary to combat Cybercrime, but critics worry about the lack of clear guidelines and potential for abuse, as seems to often be the case with a lot of these types of reforms.
Malaysia’s Pattern of Repression:
In 2018, with the rise of the pro-Democracy parliamentary coalition, Pakatan Harapan (“Alliance of Hope”), there have been some notable, positive changes. This has included a death penalty reform, anti-corruption measures, welfare improvements, and attempts to increase public confidence in the legal system. Many of these can be attributed to the work of Pakatan Harapan and the country’s current Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim.
However, this broad appearance of liberalization has obscured what seems to be a trend of continuing disappointments for civil liberties. This includes abuses under the Penal Code that the reforms are promising to strengthen. As well, some of the positive reforms, such as alternate sentences to the death penalty, have included punishments that have been deemed “cruel and unusual”, such as whipping.
In The Digital Realm…
In the years since Pakatan Harapan have held the parliament, Malaysia has demonstrated a concerning trend of digital repression and communications-focused human rights abuses. The Sedition Act, as well as the aforementioned Penal Code and Communications and Multimedia Act, have been stretched in several instances.
Notably, Khairi Anwar Jailani–the director of the 2021 film, Mentega Terbang–was charged under the Penal Code for “intentionally wounding religious feelings” due to the film’s religiously-critical content.
The introduction of the Anti-Fake News Act in 2018, despite riding a wave of similar bills in Europe and other parts of East Asia, further exacerbated these issues by granting the government broad powers to censor online content. Those seen as in violation of the law can face up to six years in prison.
The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission also blocked access to several online news portals, such as MalaysiaNow and TV Pertiwi, under the guise of combating misinformation and defamation. These authorities have also used surveillance and legal actions against activists and journalists such as those involved in the Women’s March earlier this year.
China’s influence on Malaysia’s digital policies have also became more pronounced during this time, particularly through the Digital Silk Road initiative. This partnership raised concerns about the adoption of Chinese-adjacent digital governance, which includes extensive surveillance and censorship mechanisms. In addition, there were issues regarding privacy and data security as the Malaysian government invested in Chinese-developed surveillance technologies last year, particularly AI-assisted facial recognition.
Despite overtures of reform, a number of international organizations remain skeptical about the implementation of any genuine, positive changes within the Malaysian legal system. It’s worth pointing out that many of these watchdogs have been accused of having a “western” bias. I think it should stand to reason, however, that the growth of digital surveillance states should always to be scrutinized and monitored. Malaysia’s implementation of an internet killswitch is certainly not a comforting prospect to that end.
More details on the “killswitch” and its related reforms are said to be coming in September.