Jailing elderly man for 'false' post shows govt's backdoor anti-fake news act

On Feb 25, senior citizen Johari Ismail was imprisoned for six months after failing to pay a RM30,000 fine for a charge under Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA).
 
The charge against Johari was allegedly for uploading a "false" statement claiming that the Conference of Rulers has voted to take action against the current government regarding their failure to act on the addendum relating to former prime minister Najib Razak.
 
It is unacceptable that Johari was charged for an offence under Section 233(1)(a) of CMA and sentenced to a hefty sum of RM30,000. As an ordinary Malaysian he was unable to pay the fine and is now in prison. 

This government has allowed section 233(1)(a) to be utilised as a backdoor anti-fake news law, and this prosecution and sentence would undoubtedly strike fear into the hearts of the ordinary public.
 
Irrespective of the alleged falsity of the statement, public discussion of the addendum issue is obviously a topic of national interest. The government must not be trigger-happy in charging and jailing anyone who participates in such discussion. 

If there was anything incorrect or untrue, the government is well-equipped to counter it with the full force of the government communications facilities.
 
If the public is going to have their online comments constantly examined by police with a fine tooth-comb for inaccuracies, no one will dare say anything. Anyone can make an honest mistake. Are they to be jailed for this? It will be the death of freedom of speech.
 
Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution upholds freedom of speech as one of the fundamental liberties of the people, and this right must be jealously guarded. Just because it is purportedly false does not mean that it warrants a criminal sanction.
 
Have Anwar Ibrahim and other members of Pakatan Harapan forgotten how they fought against the Anti-Fake News Act? The justification for opposing the Anti-Fake News Act should apply similarly to section 233(1)(a). 

In fact, it is one of the reasons why PH previously promised to repeal the provision; a promise they have shamelessly broken.
 
Fake news on matters of public importance should be addressed and answered, but it is wrong to slap the public with criminal charges for that reason. That would be a slippery slope into authoritarianism, where any discourse on matters of public interest must be in the narrative factually approved by the government of the day.
 
We also note with concern that the reports relating to the conviction of Johari under Section 233(1)(aportrays the charge as bringing disrepute to the royal institution. This is yet another dangerous position to take as the royal institution is involved with many integral parts of public administration, including the grant of pardons. 

Simply because they form part of the conversation should not immediately mean that it is done with the aim of bringing disrepute to royal institutions.
 
We hereby remind the government that it must not render freedom of speech illusory by instilling fear on the members of the public with indiscriminate threats of prosecution. 

Any response to "fake" news should not come at the expense of the right to freedom of speech. 

To that end, the government must honour its promise to repeal section 233(1)(a) of CMA which they themselves at one point branded as draconian.
 
As for Johari Ismail, it is hoped in the name of justice that he receives help from right-minded people to pay off his fine and be released from suffering in prison, which he does not deserve.

Zaid Malek is director of Lawyers for Liberty.