5/20/2018 

2 COMMENTS

A Comparative Study on the Anti-Fake News Act

2018
I. INTRODUCTION
 
As technology advances with time, the dissemination of fake news is becoming a
global concern which affects the safety, economy and well-being of most
countries. For instance, there is a widespread concern expressed in the United
States (“US”) that the 2016 US Presidential Election (“2016 Election”) saw online
falsehoods spread by private actors and Russia. Back in Malaysia, fake news has
led to a shoe company, Bata Primavera Sdn Bhd, losing more than RM500, 000 in
just a month after an allegation that went viral about the company selling shoes
with the Arabic word “Allah”.[1] Fake news also sparked unnecessary public
confusion when a fire broke out at the Employees Provident Fund (“EPF”)’s
building and people began panicking that their EPF savings were affected by the
fire.[2] Needless to say, the recent 14th General Election also observes an
abundance of unverified election news spreading on media outlets.
The above instances illustrate that the dissemination of fake news is not only a
Malaysian problem but a global threat to the world of information which needs to
be tackled swiftly and effectively.[3] In this regard, the public raised an eyebrow
when the Malaysian Legislatives passed the Anti-Fake News Act 2018 (“Act”)
[4] at the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara on 2 April 2018[5] and 3 April
2018[6] respectively. Subsequently, the Act received royal assent on 9 April 2018
and came into force on 11 April 2018.[7] In general, the Act seeks to deal with
fake news by providing for certain offences and measures to curb the
dissemination of fake news.[8] With that, this article will first provide an overview
of the Act and further, a comparative study on foreign jurisdictions.
 
II. OVERVIEW OF THE ANTI-FAKE NEWS ACT 2018
 
The definition of “fake news” in the Act does not simply include news but also
information, data and reports. In the same vein, it can be in the form of features,
visuals or audio recordings or in any other form capable of suggesting words or
ideas and a piece of news that is partly false is sufficient to constitute as fake
news.[9] This definition seems to suggest an extremely wide context where it
does not only cover news, but also any form of materials such as data, reports or
information. Besides, the term ‘false’ is regrettably not defined and it is silent as to
by whom the legality of the news should be determined. If a piece of news is
published by a person with malicious intent without taking reasonable measures
to verify the truth of the news, it can be construed as a piece of false news.[10] It
is pertinent to point out that it is already an offence to publish false news under
section 8A(1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984[11] whereas false
communication is criminalised under section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and
Multimedia Act 1998.[12]
 
Interestingly, the Act provides for an extra-territorial application where a person
can be charged under the Act regardless of his nationality or citizenship.
[13] Meaning, the Act applies to offences committed outside Malaysia by a
Malaysian or a foreigner so long as the fake news concerns Malaysia or affects a
Malaysian. Neither the complainant nor the person being complained of needs to
be physically present in Malaysia for the offence to have been committed. For
instance, a foreign press or commentators can conveniently be targeted and
published for not toeing the official line when reporting on controversial issues
about Malaysia. It is pertinent to note that extra-territorial jurisdiction is not
usually invoked, save for extremely serious crimes such as piracy and terrorism.
[14] A person committing an offence under the Act will only be charged when the
accused is brought to Malaysia through an extradition process. That said,
reference may be made to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2002.
[15]
 
The Act provides for 4 main offences, namely:
 
A. Creating, offering, publishing, etc., fake news
 
It is an offence under the Act for a person to be proven to maliciously create,
offer, publish, print, distribute, circulate or disseminate any fake news, or
publication containing fake news.[16] The following illustrations intend to explain
the scope of the offence:[17]

1. When A publishes fake news on Z, A is guilty;

2. When B publishes fake news from A unknowingly, only A is guilty;
3. When B shares A’s fake news on Z knowing it was false, A and B are guilty;
4. When A publishes fake news advertisement on Z’s success, A is guilty;
5. When A shares fake news on Z’s product when it no longer exists, A is
guilty;
6. When A impersonates government agency and issues fake news such as
non-existent guideline, A is guilty;
7. When A knowingly tells fake news about Z in a public forum, A is guilty; and
8. When A announces fake news about Z in a press conference, A is guilty.
 
It is pertinent to note that an offence committed under the Act is a criminal
offence. Therefore, the term ‘maliciously’ under section 4(1) of the Act suggests
that the prosecution ought to prove malice of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. To prove express malice, the prosecution must show 2 points, namely:

(i) that the defendant does not believe in the truth of the information; and
(ii) that the dominant desire of the defendant should not be to give vent to his
personal spite or ill will or to obtain some private advantage unconnected with the
duty or interest.[18]
 
In Tun Datuk Patinggi Haji Abdul Rahman Ya’kub v Bre Sdn Bhd,[19] the High Court
found that the sole purpose of the concerned letter was to put the plaintiff to
public ridicule and contempt. It is only when the defendant’s desire to act on the
duty or interest plays no significant part in his motives for publishing his honest
belief that it can be said express malice exists. However, the illustrations under
the Act seem to reflect the proof of knowledge instead of malice. On top of that,
unlike other criminal offences, there is no requirement for the prosecution to
prove harm under the Act. Therefore, it is regarded as a conduct crime and not a
result crime. It is to be contrasted with the criminal offence under section 233(1)
(a) Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 where the harm to be proven is
that the publication was published with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or
harass another person.[20]
 
An accused, upon conviction under the Act, is punishable by a fine up to RM
500,000 or imprisonment for a term not more than 6 years or both[21] and a
continuing fine of RM 3,000 for each day of non-compliance.[22] In addition, the
court can also order the accused to make an apology to the person affected by
the fake news[23] and if the accused fails to comply with the court order, he or
she will be subject to a contempt of court.[24]
 
B. Financial assistance
 
A person can be charged under this Act if he renders financial aid to help creating
or spreading fake news, but only if he or she knowingly does so or has a good
reason to suspect  the funds will support the fake news.[25]  Upon conviction, the
punishment is tantamount to the offence stated in (a) above, that is, a fine of not
more than RM 500,000 and imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 years or to
both.[26]
 
C. Failing to remove publication containing fake news
 
A person who is in control or has in his or her possession any publication
containing fake news must immediately remove it as soon as he or she knows or
has reasonable grounds to believe that such publication contains fake news.
[27] This section targets the intermediaries and those who have control over third
party contents such as social media platforms, hosts and search engines. Their
failure to do so may result in a fine not exceeding RM 100,000 and a further fine
not exceeding RM 3,000 for every day during which the offence continues after
conviction.[28]
 
Additionally, a person who is affected by the fake news may apply to the court for
an ex parte order to remove the fake news without informing the person being
complained.[29] Hence, there is no opportunity to have both parties present in
court to argue the veracity of the fake news. The Sessions Court must then decide
on the issue and grant an order upon an evaluation of the complaint and any
supporting evidence submitted by the complainant.[30] A court order to remove
the publication can be served by electronic means, which is not defined but could
conceivably include service by email, WhatsApp, Twitter, Facebook, or other
forms of text messaging or social media platform.[31] Failure to abide by the court
order leads to the commission of a criminal offence, which carries a fine up to RM
100,000.[32]
 
Persons being complained can then challenge the court order within 14 days from
the date the order is served on them[33] but an application to challenge does not
operate to suspend or defer the original order.[34] However, there is an ouster
clause that if it is the Government that obtains the order and alleges that the fake
news is prejudicial or is likely to be prejudicial to public order or national security,
the order cannot be challenged.[35] The Act is silent as to whether a citizen may
apply for an ex parte order to remove the false news where the Government
publishes fake news.
 
D. Abetting or assisting any of the above offences
 
A person who abets the commission of any offence mentioned in (a), (b) and (c)
shall be penalised with the punishment provided for the offence respectively.
 
If the offence is committed by a body corporate, the Act allows for criminal
liability to be attached to its directors and officers, unless they can prove the
offence committed was without their knowledge and they had taken all
reasonable precautions.[36] In all offences committed under the Act, arrest
without warrant is permitted.[37]
 
III. FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS
 
A. Germany
 
The German Parliament has recently adopted the Network Enforcement Act
(“NetzDG”) which came into force on 1 October 2017.[38] The NetzDG has the
dubious honour of being the first fake news law in the world which aims to
combat hate speech and fake news in social networks. In this regard, it is
noteworthy that the NetzDG is only applicable to social media networks which
have more than 2 million registered users, for example, Twitter and Facebook.
[39] Social media networks are defined as tele-media service providers that
operate online platforms with the intent to make a profit, on which users can
share contents with other users or make that content publicly available.[40]
 
The NetzDG obligates these social media networks to remove contents that are
‘clearly illegal’ within 24 hours after receiving a user complaint.[41] If the illegality
of the content is not obvious, the social network has 7 days to investigate and
delete it.[42] The 7-days deadline may be extended if the social network hires an
external agency to perform the vetting process, namely Agency of Regulated Self-
Regulation (“ARSR”).[43] An agency may be recognised by the Ministry of Justice
as an ARSR if the examiner is independent and possesses the necessary expertise
to guarantee a speedy examination within 7 days, to provide the rules of
procedure on  ways to deal with a complaint, and is supported by several social
media networks with sufficient facilities to work efficiently and expeditiously.
[44] To determine the illegality of the content, the NetzDG may make reference
to the Criminal Code provisions on dissemination of propaganda material,
encouragement of the commission of an offence endangering the state,
commission of treasonous forgery, public incitement to crime, and incitement to
hatred.[45]

The social media platforms are obligated to offer their users an easy and
transparent complaint mechanism that is constantly available.[46] The decisions
made with regard to the complaint and the reasoning behind accepting or
rejecting it must be communicated to the complainant and the affected user
without undue delay.[47] Social media networks that receive more than 100
complaints about false content in a calendar year are required to publish biannual
reports in the Federal Gazette and on the homepage of the social media network.
[48] A social media network that intentionally or negligently commits the offence
under the NetzDG may be fined up to € 50 million.[49]
 
B. Singapore
 
The Singapore Parliament was requested by the Singapore Government to
appoint a Parliamentary Select Committee (“Select Committee”) to study the
problem of deliberate online falsehoods and to recommend how Singapore should
respond to it.
 
On 5 January 2018, the Ministry of Communications and Information and the
Ministry of Law have issued a Green Paper entitled “Deliberate Online
Falsehoods: Challenges and Implications” (“Green Paper”) to the Parliament. [50] 
The paper sets out how fake news had affected other countries in the world, the
steps those countries were taking and the possible solutions.  
 
Subsequently, a Select Committee was set up to study the concerns highlighted in
the Green Paper. The Select Committee held 8 days of public hearings, with a
total of 65 individuals including representatives from experts, technology and
media companies, civil societies, students and members of the public who were
called to speak before the Select Committee to make their recommendations to
lawmakers. Whilst the Select Committee will meet again after Parliament
reconvenes in May, the efforts reflect the sincerity of the Singapore authorities to
consult widely and engage deeply on the issue for a better understanding of the
problem and to recommend solutions that would best serve Singapore and
Singaporeans.
 
C. United States
 
Despite the US is facing serious turmoil with regard to fake news in its 2016
Election, the country does not have any specific regulation to tackle fake news to
date. However, it is relevant to note that the US Senators proposed the Honest
Ads Act (“Bill”) on 19 October 2017 to promote the regulation of online campaign
advertisements by companies such as Facebook and Google. The Bill was
introduced as a response in order to investigate the purchase of political
advertisements by Russia during the 2016 Election.
 
The reforms proposed by the Bill are threefold:[51]

1. Amending the definition of electioneering communication under the

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 to include paid Internet and digital
advertisements;

2. Requiring digital platforms with at least 50 million monthly viewers to

maintain a public file of all electioneering communications purchased by
those who spend more than US$500 on advertisements published on their
platform. The file would contain a digital copy of the advertisements, a
description of the audience the advertisement targets, the number of views
 generated, the dates and times of publication, the rates charged and the
contact information of the purchaser; and

3. Requiring online platforms to make all reasonable efforts to ensure that

foreign individuals and entities are not purchasing political advertisements
in order to influence the American electorate. 

 
As the Cambridge Analytical scandal broke, the supporters of the Bill saw an
opportunity to exert pressure to the generally regulation-averse social media
platforms. This strategy appeared to pay off. In April 2018, Facebook and Twitter
have expressed their support on the Bill to increase transparency in political
advertising and to promote accountability of advertisers.[52]
 
IV. CONCLUSION
 
The dissemination of fake news is now a knotty legitimate issue globally. Many
countries have attempted to tackle the issue via legislation. 
 
In Germany, the government empowers social media platforms to deal with false
publication where they are required to investigate further upon the lodging of a
complaint. The result of the investigation must then be communicated to the
complainant and published to the public transparently.
 
In Singapore, a Select Committee on the Green Paper was set up to obtain
feedback through public hearings on online falsehoods. Although many civil
society groups in Singapore have criticised the Select Committee as a farce, at the
very least there is a consultative process through public hearings on the matter
before a bill is tabled to be passed in Parliament.
 
In US, the Bill was introduced to close a loophole that has existed since politicians
started advertising on the internet.The Bill was expected by many to sail through
Congress. The Bill introduced disclosure and disclaimer rules to online political
advertising. Taking into account the investigation by the Congress on how Russia
used technology companies to influence the 2016 Election, it was considered by
many in US to be the bare minimum lawmakers could do to address the problem.
 
Looking at the issue of fake news in the context of Malaysia, the Act seems to be
empowered with a wider scope to include any person who disseminates false
news, and the burden is placed upon the court to determine the validity of the
news. Still, an ex parte order can be obtained to remove the alleged fake news.
Such allocation of burden is in stark contrast with the NetzDG in Germany where
social media platforms are specifically targeted with the burden to investigate the
alleged fake news.
 
It is also debatable as to whether the Act should be seen as redundant or
complementary to the existing laws such as the Communications and Multimedia
Act 1998, the Printing Presses and Publication Act 1984 and the Penal Code.
 
Certain critics have also highlighted the potential abuse of the Act to stifle
freedom of expression. Ultimately, attention must be drawn to the freedom of
expression as provided by Article 10 of the Federal Constitution.
 
Another drawback of the Act is that it was passed in a rush without a thorough
consultation process with relevant stakeholders. On the danger of selective
prosecution, the then Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri
Azalina Othman Said denied the insinuation by saying that the prosecution will
only take place after a comprehensive investigation, which is in line with the legal
maxim “a person is innocent until proven guilty”, then a conviction will be
determined by the court.[53]
 
It was reported on 27 April 2018 that Malaysiakini has filed a judicial review
application on the Act, declaring that it violates Article 5(1), Article 8(1) and
Article 10(1) of the Federal Constitution.[54] Just a few days later, Danish
national was reported to be the first person to be charged and punished under the
Act over a YouTube video he posted regarding the shooting of a supposed Hamas
member.[55]
 
The author would like to draw the readers’ attention to a quote by Stephen
Magagnini in The Sacramento Bee: “Objectivity is impossible, but fairness is
mandatory.” Fairness should be the over-arching aim of the Act. With the shift of
government in Malaysia recently, the new Prime Minister has promised to revise
the Act[56] whilst a civil rights group, Lawyers for Liberty utters that the Act
should be abolished instead.[57] It is interesting to see what is next

Fake news laws may ‘catch on’

during coronavirus
Such legislation could curtail academic freedom, say scholars
The prevalence of fake news related to the coronavirus could be used by countries to justify
new misinformation legislation that could harm academic freedom, scholars have warned.
Earlier this month, Singapore’s communications and information minister S. Iswaran said
that the use of fake news during the pandemic strengthened the government’s decision last
year to introduce the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (Pofma).
“Our Covid-19 experience has reinforced, if anything, that conviction and certainly we have
no reason to question the reason for doing so,” he said, as reported by The Straits Times.
“In a situation like an epidemic, it is essential that our population stays calm, gets advice
and information from reliable sources, and is able to then take appropriate measures. In
that context, we have found Pofma, the tools and also the...authority that is vested in the
executive to exercise those tools to have been very effective.”
Pofma is more draconian than other fake news legislation, including maximum penalties of
10 years’ imprisonment or a S$1 million (£580,000) fine, and scholars fear that it may be
used to censor academic papers and university teaching materials.
It is now thought that other countries that were considering similar laws are using the
coronavirus to justify their implementation.
A senator in Nigeria, which is debating a bill inspired by Singapore’s legislation, told the
public earlier this month to see fake news as a virus in need of containment, according
to local reports. Meanwhile, Thailand, which has arrested several people for allegedly
spreading fake news about the coronavirus outbreak, cited Singapore as a model for its
Anti-Fake News Center.
Linda Lim, professor emerita of corporate strategy and international business at the
University of Michigan and a critic of Singapore’s Pofma, said that she was “quite
concerned” that other countries would also attempt to copy Singapore’s law.
“Because of Singapore’s overall good reputation in the international community, including
for being ‘business-friendly’ and so far bearing no adverse consequences (internationally)
for the law, other countries may understandably be tempted to emulate it as a de facto
precedent,” she said.
“In a worst-case scenario, an authoritarian government could use it as one tool in an
arsenal that it widely uses to suppress free speech, discouraging academic research into
controversial subjects or that might have outcomes that reflect poorly on the government.”
Nuurrianti Jalli, senior lecturer in media warfare at Malaysia’s Universiti Teknologi MARA,
said that misinformation must be “handled…particularly currently amid the Covid-19
pandemic outbreak” but existing communication law “would suffice to remind the public of
the ramifications of sharing false content”.
In countries that are “authoritarian” or have “weak democracy…enacting such a law gives
the government power to suppress freedom of expression and silence critics
systematically,” she said.
“The situation is hard as is. Adding a ‘fake news’ law to the equation will further challenge
the academic freedom in these countries,” she added.
The Malaysian government, then led by the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO),
introduced a widely criticised Anti-Fake News Law in 2018, but it was repealed the same
year by the new Pakatan Harapan coalition government.
But Ross Tapsell, senior lecturer and researcher at the Australian National University’s
College of Asia and the Pacific, specialising in Southeast Asian media, said that a fake
news law could soon be back on the table in Malaysia.
“Due to an internal party coup in 2020, UMNO is now back in power with a newly formed
coalition and presumably will look to do something in this space,” he said.

MIC urges govt to reinstate Anti-Fake News Act

after influx of false news related to Covid-19
Tuesday, 31 Mar 2020 03:48 PM MYT

National MIC Youth leader, Thinalan T. Rajagopalu speaks to reporters

BY YISWAREE PALANSAMY

outside the Sri Lanka High Commission in Kuala Lumpur April 26, 2019. — Picture by Mohd
Yusof Mat Isa

KUALA LUMPUR, March 31 — The Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) has urged the
government to reinstate the repealed Anti-Fake News Act, after a series of arrests involving
those who spread disinformation about the Covid-19 outbreak.

In a statement today, National MIC Youth leader R. Thinalan said that the law is now
proven necessary, as such disinformation affects the work of the frontliners who are fighting
Covid-19, by worsening the panic surrounding the spread of the virus, and hampering effort
to contain the outbreak.

“For example, several fake news regarding a complete lockdown similar to what has been
imposed in Italy, caused many to crowd places such as shopping malls for panic buying
and bus stops to travel back to their hometowns. As a result, this may have worsened the
spread of the virus. Many would not have resorted to such actions had they known that only
a movement control order (MCO) was implemented instead of a lockdown.

“This is just one of the many examples where fake news has been hampering the efforts of
frontliners to contain the virus. The existing platforms and laws are insufficient to deal with
the surge of fake news amidst this crisis,” Thinalan said, adding that just using a fact-check
example on the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission’s (MCMC)
platform, Sebenarnya.my does not solve the problem.

He said that while the website’s administrators have been doubled efforts to combat fake
news regarding Covid-19, it is simply impossible for it accurately determine if a piece of
news was indeed fake.

He pointed to the current update on the platform, which had listed a news article regarding
the loss of sense of taste and smell as one of the symptoms of Covid-19 as fake news,
despite many legitimate sources claiming otherwise.

“In fact, there are reports stating that doctor’s organisations such as the ENT UK urging the
World Health Organisation (WHO) to officially list it as one of the symptoms of Covid-19.
Needless to say, the implications would be huge if Sebenarnya.my turns out to be wrong on
this, as many who were led to believe that loss of sense of taste and smell had nothing to
do with Covid-19, may not have taken the next step to be tested for the virus.

“However, as mentioned earlier, it is unfair to apportion the blame on Sebenarnya.my or

MCMC, as it is just impossible for a one-stop centre to be accurate in every fact-checking
exercise,” Thinalan argued.

Conversely, he said that in the Anti-Fake News Act, there were mechanisms in place for
any person affected by the fake news, to make applications to court to have such fake news
expeditiously removed.

Instead of the fact-checking role solely shouldered by the MCMC, he said that the role may
now be shouldered by many non-profit organisations and willing individuals who could have
used the Act as a platform to battle fake news.

“Also, apart from just a simple removal of the publication of fake news, there are
mechanisms in place to also order for an apology, which will be an effective measure to
clarify and battle fake news. These are all versatile and flexible features in the repealed Act
that are much needed especially in times of crisis such as this.

“On the other hand, we have the police who are also doing their level best in arresting
people who are spreading fake news. However, as law enforcers, they can only act within
the boundaries of the law,” he added.

A lawyer by profession, Thinalan explained that the existing relevant laws such as Section
505 of the Penal Code and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA)
1998 are insufficient, as while the laws may be used to combat fake news to some extent,
both are still  ”grossly insufficient” to deal with crucial situations currently.

“For example, if the loss of sense of taste and smell turns out to really be one of the
symptoms of Covid-19, anyone sharing information stating otherwise would then be, in fact,
sharing fake news. Unfortunately, sharing such fake news would not fall under any of the
above provisions as they do not alarm the public or harass or threaten anyone. Despite
that, such fake news may cause harm to many, as they would be misled into being more
complacent than they should be, when they are in fact supposed to be alarmed.

“While Pakatan Harapan may have been too short-sighted in having the vision to see the
significance of the Anti-Fake News Act 2018, so much so that they had it repealed for
political mileage, MIC Youth urges the government to consider bringing it back to remedy
this issue, despite being largely unpopular like a bitter medicine that our country needs,” he
added.

Last week, state news agency Bernama reported that the Communications and Multimedia
Ministry, in collaboration with the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM), had recorded statements
of five suspects who allegedly spread fake news on Covid-19.

Minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah reportedly said the five suspects were in addition to the
six people who were already charged for the offence.

The Dewan Negara had on December 19, passed the repeal of the Anti-Fake News Act
2018 (Act 803) after the Bill was tabled for second reading.
 The Anti-Fake News Act was repealed by the Dewan Rakyat- again on October 9 last year,
after it was rebuffed by the Dewan Negara.  

The government first tabled the Bill in September 2018, and it got past the Dewan Rakyat,
but was rejected by the Dewan Negara. 

Anti-Fake News law aims to protect

democracy
 LETTERS
 Tuesday, 03 Apr 2018
 12:00 AM MYT


SINCE the Government’s Anti-Fake News Bill 2018 was introduced in Parliament, it has
attracted a lot of attention and comments.

We welcome discussion, and after listening to a wide array of voices, the Government has
made changes to the Bill, including reducing the maximum sentence for convictions under
this law to six years in prison.

However, some of the coverage of the proposed Bill has been intentionally misleading and
in some cases completely false. For example, the definition of fake news in the Bill is clear
and specific – freedom of speech as provided for under the Federal Constitution will not be
curtailed; and the Government will not itself decide what is fake news but instead will allow
a neutral party, namely the courts, to decide via an independent legal process. As we have
seen, since a former leader stepped down and judicial independence was recovered, court
decisions now frequently go against the Government and senior ministers.

Let us not forget that it is this Government under the leadership of Prime Minister Datuk
Seri Najib Tun Razak that has introduced the most far-reaching measures since
independence to strengthen free speech and democracy. For example, the Internal Security
Act was repealed; the State of Emergency that had existed for over 60 years ended; media
freedom was increased by scrapping restrictions on newspaper publishing licences; the
Universities and University Colleges Act was reformed to allow undergraduates to
participate in political activities; and the Peaceful Assembly Act was passed, for the first
time enshrining in law the right to peaceful protest.

So it is clear that this Government will act when it is necessary to protect the security and
freedoms of the people and our democratic process. And there can be no doubt that this
fake news law is necessary. Furthermore, Malaysia is not alone in this. Countries around the
world, including our Asean neighbours Singapore and the Philippines, are considering or
have introduced similar legislation to combat fake news.

Germany has implemented its own anti-fake news law which provides for fines of up to 50
million euros (RM241mil) on networks that fail to take down illegal content within 24 hours.
In France, President Emmanuel Macron has promised to introduce a law to ban fake news
on the Internet during elections. He was uncompromising about the need for such
legislation.

And Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May is launching a fake news rapid response unit “to
deal quickly with disinformation and reclaim a fact-based public debate.” These are not
repressive regimes but European countries that are known for promoting free speech and
civil liberties. The trend is clear – countries that wish to promote healthy debate and a
democratic process based on the facts are realising that they must act against the scourge of
fake news.

This is not just a matter of social media or the Internet – although fake news is known to
spread like wildfire on those platforms, and is unfortunately far more readily believed than
the truth. Take the example of the last election when the false rumour was spread that
40,000 Bangladeshis were flown into Malaysia to vote. No trace of them has ever been
found. And yet many believed that these phantom voters were real and it led to racial
tension and distrust of the electoral process. This is a very real danger to our democracy and
harmony.

The problem extends to the international media. Sometimes the mistakes they make about
Malaysia are just down to ignorance, like the many occasions that international publications
have referred to Najib as “Mr Razak” or Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as “Mr Ibrahim”. In both
cases, that would mean their fathers, who are both deceased. It is worrying that
international publications, which many people in Malaysia take seriously, know so little
about our country that they make such elementary mistakes.

But we can say that those instances are essentially harmless. More serious is when
international media, including widely used news agencies, get the facts completely wrong.
One news agency recently reported that the Government had shut down The Malaysian
Insider last year when in fact – as they admitted – it closed down for commercial reasons.

The same agency reported that the Government was backing a parliamentary bill which
would “allow harsh sharia punishments, such as amputations for theft and stoning for
adultery”. This was completely false, as the agency admitted. They did correct their story but
by that time, the false report had gone around the world and was printed in papers and
published online across the continents.

No other corrections were published, and libel laws are not framed to deal with this kind of
misinformation because no person in particular was being defamed. As a result, there are
millions of people globally who will now believe something that was a complete falsehood –
because they trusted the news agency to get their facts right.

Sadly, they were wrong to do so. They were being fed “fake news” about Malaysia – and
Malaysians should not stand for it.
Another supposedly academic website recently reported that inflation was at “an all-time
high” in Malaysia. In fact, it is estimated by a wide range of reputable authorities, nationally
and internationally, to be between two and three percent – which is low both historically in
Malaysia and by international comparison. That’s more fake news, perpetrated that time by
university professors. Do they care that they are smearing a country’s reputation falsely?

More recently, there has been a string of malicious articles about Malaysia in the South
China Morning Post (SCMP), and Malaysians need to know that these do indeed constitute
fake news and appalling lies.

On March 30, the SCMP published the worst so far of these, “Why are foreign leaders
snubbing Najib ahead of Malaysia’s election?” They claimed that: “The usual beeline of VIPs
coming to Malaysia has come to a crawl. Unless Najib can showcase a big name VIP in
Malaysia, and soon, he will be open to criticism that Malaysia’s international standing has
fallen under his watch.”

This is a prime example of fake news – and it is a fact, as I will show. Quite apart from the
widely observed practice that foreign leaders do not make official visits to a country just
before an election, for fear of being seen to interfere in the country’s internal democratic
process, the Malaysian Government has actually declined foreign visits for precisely that
reason.

So, has the PM been snubbed? Well, for a start, he was the only Asean leader to be invited
to give a keynote address at the Asean-Australia Counter-Terrorism Conference in Sydney
last month, and the organisers of some major forthcoming international conferences are
currently imploring him to attend.

Furthermore, among the foreign leaders the PM has welcomed in Malaysia in just the last
year are the King of Saudi Arabia, President of France, Crown Prince of Japan, King of
Bahrain, Prime Minister of Lao PDR, US Secretary of State, State Councillor of the People’s
Republic of China Wang Yong, Emir of Qatar, Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall,
President of Indonesia, Prime Minister of Morocco, President of Comoros, and the
Governor-General of New Zealand.

This does not include the world leaders the PM was officially received by overseas in the last
year, including the President and Prime Minister of China, President of the United States of
America, Prime Minister of Great Britain, Prime Minister of India, and Prime Minister of
Australia, to name just a few. The SCMP may not realise that the PM has a job to do, quite
apart from meeting foreign leaders.
The article also contains other errors so serious as to count as fake news. For instance, it
says there has “been speculation that Najib’s government engaged the tainted analytics firm
Cambridge Analytica, the company ensnared in global controversy for skewing votes in the
US election.” There is no need for speculation as the writer, if he bothered with the facts,
must know. Both the Government and the parent company of Cambridge Analytica, SCL
Group, have confirmed that the company has never been contracted to or paid by Barisan
Nasional or the Government. In fact, the head of Cambridge Analytica/SCL Group in
Malaysia has publicly confirmed that the only person their advice was provided to was
Datuk Seri Mukhriz Mahathir, deputy president of the opposition PPBM and son of
opposition leader Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. So this is more fake news.

The SCMP used to be a widely respected regional newspaper, and some Malaysians reading

its reports may naively think they can trust them. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case.

Like a sad number of international publications and media, facts and journalistic process and
ethics to them are no long “sacred”. Slipshod journalism and smear tactics have infected
their articles.

The only people who need to be afraid of our Anti-Fake News Bill 2018 are those who
broadcast or pass on fake news – or lies – to you and me. If we are criticised for being on
the side of truth, so be it. That is criticism we can take with a good heart. And we will not
stop calling out the people who would confuse the facts – of which we are certain – with
the spin and deceit of people who would subvert democracy for their own selfish ends.

The true story of Malaysia is that since Najib took office in 2009, Malaysia’s Gross National
Income has increased by more than 50%, nearly 2.7 million jobs have been created,
unemployment and inflation have been kept low, and absolute poverty is almost eliminated.
The Malaysian economy grew so fast last year that the World Bank had to increase its
estimates three times over 2017, and even then the actual figure, at 5.9 percent, exceeded
their final prediction.

The Government’s plan for the economic wellbeing and security of Malaysia and its people is
delivering. As the International Monetary Fund reported in early March 2018: “The country
is well on its way to achieving high-income status.”

These are the facts, and it is them and them alone that should inform debate in this country
and abroad. To be properly informed is the very least that the Malaysian people deserve.
The Opposition and some of the media outlets that support them seem to disagree. They
may prefer spin, smears and outright lies – but the Government will continue to fight for the
truth.
DATUK SERI PANGLIMA DR SALLEH SAID KERUAK
Communications and Multimedia Minister