ASEAN Regional Coalition to #StopDigitalDictatorship Criminalisation of Defamation: the Penal Code Defamation is punishable under the Penal Code. It is stipulated within Chapter XXI (Sections 499-502) which reads “whoever, by words either spoken or intended including disclosures related to government corruption. Notably, Section 203A also extends its reach to media outlets reporting on such matters, thus restricting their ability to disseminate information obtained from civil servants or other sources.7 to be read or by signs, or by visible representations, In addition, the law on defamation in Malaysia makes or publishes any imputation concerning any is governed by the Defamation Act 1957 for civil person, intending to harm, or knowing or having claims, although it is less used in this context. It reason to believe that such imputation will harm distinguishes between two forms of defamation: the reputation and shall also be punishable by up permanent defamation, known as “libel”, which to two years in prison, a fine or both, to defame that concerns written records or drawings, and temporary person.” Coupled with the turbulent state of freedom defamation, known as “slander”, which concerns of speech in Malaysia, defamation provisions arm temporary statements of a gestural or verbal nature.8 4 the authorities in levelling defamation accusations against voices critical of the government. Moreover, Section 505(b) of the Penal Code makes it a criminal offence to “make, publish or circulate any statement, rumour or report with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquillity.”5 The provision fails to meet the requirement that any limitation on expression shall be expressed precisely enough for a person to understand what speech would be deemed “likely to cause fear and alarm in the public” or what will be considered an offence “against public tranquillity.” Moreover, Section 298A(1) of the Penal Code, which criminalises the insult of any religion, and has resulted in the arbitrary prosecution of religious speech, continues to be used despite having been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal in 1987 and 2014 respectively.6 Sedition Law to Muzzle Critics Another law used to limit online speech is the Sedition Act. Originally enacted in 1948, it went through an amendment in 2015 that broadened its scope to include online statements. The Sedition Act, which dates back to the colonial era, is notoriously used by the authorities to silence dissent and opponents.9 It has also been used to stifle discourse on topics like religion, race, ethnicity, and Malaysian royalty. Section 3 of the Act criminalises any “publishing, distribution and importing of seditious publications,” as well as “publication by electronic means” and acts which “cause to be published” materials that “promote feelings of ill will, hostility or hatred … on the grounds of religion,” or “bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler.” Section 3(1) carries a maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment and a maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment for a new “aggravated” offence of sedition causing Section 203A of the Penal Code is also another barrier “bodily harm” or “damage to property.” It also accords which criminalises the disclosure of information courts the power to order individuals to remove acquired during official duties or in the exercise of online content deemed seditious, ban individuals one’s functions under any written law. This provision from accessing an electronic device, and order an carries penalties of imprisonment for up to one year, officer authorised under the Communications and a fine of up to RM 1 million ($238,095), or both, Multimedia Act 1998 to restrict access to online potentially stifling freedom of expression. Particularly content deemed seditious.10 concerning is its potential use to suppress information, 152 Dawn of Digital Dictatorship: Weaponizing the Law Against Online Speech in Southeast Asia