The article discusses McDonald's collaboration with the Malaysian government and

their efforts to pursue sedition charges against individuals who are supporting a boycott in
response to the Gaza conflict. The author's tone is disapproving, highlighting the
unconventional and controversial nature of McDonald's decision. This essay delves into three
main ideas: McDonald's collaboration and announcement, the public's negative response, and
the difficulties in addressing the boycott.

The primary focus is on McDonald's partnership and the subsequent announcement.

The Chief Technology Officer of McDonald's recently took to social media to share an exciting
revelation, expressing gratitude for the cooperation received from the government. The move,
though, has garnered significant backlash, especially from rights lawyer Zaid Malek, who finds
it strange and inappropriate. The unconventional use of the Sedition Act raises concerns about
the company's strategic decision-making.

The second main idea focuses on the public backlash and McDonald's efforts to address
the boycott. Despite the company's attempts to disassociate from pro-Israeli positions, the
boycott persists, affecting business in the Klang Valley. McDonald's partnership with the
government has sparked a wave of astonishment and fueled a growing sense of disapproval
among social media users. In addition, videos aimed at countering the boycott are said to have
unintended consequences, further complicating the fast-food giant's public relations situation.

The third main idea explores the difficulties McDonald's encounters in maintaining its
brand image. The company's efforts to distance itself from pro-Israeli associations and
highlight its support for zakat and humanitarian funds have not successfully lessened the impact
of the boycott. The article implies that the Sedition Act move could have lasting effects,
potentially impacting McDonald's reputation with consumers and the public.

Finally, the utilisation of the Sedition Act by McDonald's in response to the boycott
raises legitimate concerns regarding the company's public perception. In my opinion, I have
concerns about this approach and how it could potentially harm McDonald's reputation. The
legal measures in question appear to be excessive given the circumstances, and the backlash
from both the general public and a rights lawyer underscores the potential ramifications.
McDonald's could benefit from adopting more transparent and socially responsible strategies
to address concerns and rebuild trust, instead of relying on legal measures that might worsen
the situation.