investigations and criminal prosecutions for creating and sharing the content in question. Apart from activists and political dissenters who have been charged, an online news editor has also been charged for uploading a video of coverage of a press conference.58 In this case, KiniTV Sdn Bhd, a media company, was charged under Section 233(1) (a) of the CMA while the editor-in-chief, Steven Gan, was charged under Section 244(1), which carries a similar punishment if found guilty.59 Reflecting on the cases that Malaysia has witnessed in recent years, it is difficult to say how far-reaching this law can be in the criminalisation of freedom of expression. This law has shown itself to be highly flexible in its utilisation by the state, and also a law that can be utilised by non-state actors to push for government action even when the police report lodged has no merits or is false in nature.60 This flexibility is interpreted by the communications and multimedia deputy minister as applicable for punishing WhatsApp group administrators if they failed to curb the spread of false information.61 In terms of the application of the law, there are also substantial concerns on the manner of application itself, which may create additional human rights violations on top of the criminalisation of freedom of expression. On the lighter end of the spectrum, there have been cases where individuals were harassed through persistent calls for questioning and investigations and were finally released with no further actions. At the other end, there have been cases where individuals were found guilty and faced fines and prison terms. One individual was fined MYR 120,000 (over USD 28,000) and sentenced to 30 months imprisonment in default; another individual was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment for 14 charges of allegedly insulting a member of royalty on Facebook.62 Fortunately, in 58 Yatim, H. (2016, 18 November). M’kini editor-in-chief charged over AG videos. Malaysia Kini. www.malaysiakini.com/news/363282 59 Section 244(1) states that a senior officer (director, CEO or similar individual) can be jointly charged with the corporate body unless he or she is able to prove that the offence was committed without his or her knowledge, consent or connivance and he or she had taken all reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence. 60 Yen, H. K. (2017, 24 May). Alibi given by man over charges he ‘insulted Najib, Rosmah’. Free Malaysia Today. http:// www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2017/05/24/ alibi-given-by-man-over-charges-he-insulted-najib-rosmah/7 61 CNA. (2017, 27 April). Malaysia may take action against WhatsApp admins for spreading fake news: Report. Channel News Asia. www. channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/malaysia-may-takeaction-against-whatsapp-admins-for-spreading-8796344 62 The Straits Times. (2016, 7 June). Youth sentenced to 1-year jail for insulting Johor royalty on Facebook. The Straits Times. www. straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/youth-sentenced-to-1-year-jail-forinsulting-johor-royalty-on-facebook the case of the 14 counts, the person in question was allowed to serve his sentences concurrently. Apart from the direct impact posed by Section 233 of the CMA, Section 263 also plays a substantial role in the criminalisation of freedom of expression in Malaysia. Unlike Section 233, Section 263 is targeted towards network service providers. The law itself technically compels network service providers to follow government directives in enforcing the law and requires the providers to enforce all Malaysian laws as part of their services. While the law itself may be innocuous, the provision is often cited by the government and utilised to compel internet service providers (ISPs) to block websites that have been deemed as illegal.63 Penal Code offences On top of the crime of sedition and the myriad of other possible offences under Section 233 of the CMA, the criminalisation of freedom of expression includes the application of selected sections of the Penal Code. Selected aspects of the Penal Code offences64 used to criminalise freedom of expression have been addressed in the earlier portion of this report. On top of those provisions, there are other sections such as Section 298, Section 298A and Section 499. Notable cases under Section 29865 include the case of Aishah Tajuddin, a radio DJ who made a video highlighting the peculiarity that would result from the proposal by the Islamic Party regarding the implementation of Hudud law in the state of Kelantan.66 On top of the attacks and threats posed against her by anonymous internet users (an issue to be further covered later in this report), she was called for investigation by the police under Section 298 of the Penal Code,67 and was also reportedly investigated by the MCMC for causing mischief online.68 More recently, a local English newspaper which published a controversial front page was called 63 BBC. (2016, 14 March). Blocked Malaysian insider news website shuts down. BBC News. www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35800396 64 Chapter VI offences relating to threat to parliamentary democracy and its peers. 65 Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person. 66 The video contains a scene where a hijab or headscarf mysteriously appears on the DJ upon entry to the state. 67 The Jakarta Post. (2015, 23 March). Cops to probe Malaysian station and journalist over hudud satire video. The Jakarta Post. www. thejakartapost.com/news/2015/03/23/cops-probe-malaysianstation-and-journalist-over-hudud-satire-video.html 68 Free Malaysia Today. (2015, 22 March). Blasphemy probe into BFM video. Free Malaysia Today. www.freemalaysiatoday.com/ category/nation/2015/03/22/blasphemy-probe-into-bfm-video MALAYSIA / 89