YOURSAY | 'If the gov't doesn't like you, you are done for, no matter how innocent you are.'

Anti-fake news bill prescribes RM500k fine, 10 years' jail

Gerard Lourdesamy: What nonsense is this? How can the penalties for the Anti-Fake News Bill - RM500,000 fine or 10 years' jail, or both - exceed the penalties for more serious offences in the Penal Code?

Those affected can still sue for defamation or make a police report for criminal defamation. More serious cases can be dealt with under the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA), Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA), Sedition Act and the Penal Code.

This is overkill by the government. The definition of fake news is also vague. What is the definition of “national security” and “public order” in the bill? Who determines this?

Clause 8 (3) of the bill is unconstitutional as it offends Articles 5 and 8 of the Federal Constitution. How can an ex parte order obtained by the government on the grounds of public order or national security not be set aside for irregularity or on the merits?

Also, is there an appeal procedure? The bill is silent on appeals and the right to seek judicial review.

Pakatan Harapan should oppose this bill and if passed, repeal it should they win GE14. We are sick and tired of such oppressive laws that are designed to protect corrupt politicians, their extravagant spouses and spoilt children from public scrutiny.

Newday: According to the proposed bill, a complainant must provide a "certified copy of document proving the publication containing fake news; or other certified document of evidence to support the application".

Anyone can get anything certified anytime. It does not make the certified document truthful.

The first statement uses the word "proving". This is particularly worrying as it gives the appearance that the potential offender is indeed guilty even before they end up in court.

How can something be proven when it is only one side of the story. Who assesses the veracity of the proof? The police? How do they know? The onus on the provision of “proof” is extremely loose and open to many interpretations.

It can only be up to the courts to decide on the proof of the matter. The essential word of "suspected" of issuing fake news is totally missing.

This will be the modus operandi of the government from now on - issue a “proven” claim against someone before the matter has even been judged.

Headhunter: The sole purpose of this law is to shut up any criticism of the government. Indeed, it is very vague but very far-reaching. If the government doesn't like you, you are done for, no matter how innocent you are.

This is the law that will subdue the opposition and anyone who dares to speak up against any government leader. And PM Najib Razak will wield it like a magic wand to bring his enemies to their knees.

Seektruth: The bill defines "fake news" as "any news, information, data and reports, which is or are wholly or partly false, whether in the form of features, visuals or audio recordings or in any other form capable of suggesting words or ideas".

And (Umno-owned) Utusan Malaysia will be the benchmark.

Dizzer: Seektruth, the key bit of that quote is "wholly, or partly false". So, if I claim that Najib stole US$700 million, but it turns out he stole US$750 million, I could go to prison for 10 years because my accusation was partly false. It seems fair to me…

HaveAGreatDay: ‘How 1MDB funds did (or didn’t) end up in Switzerland’ - so this Malaysiakini report will be fake news?

M'sians on brink of losing freedom to state 'two plus two make four'

Turvy: The Act is offensive in many other ways. First, is that it attempts to make or fabricate a new means to control the freedom of speech through a notion of ‘fake news’.

But the real nastiness of the Act lies in Part III, which allows a person ‘affected’ by fake news, whatever that means, to apply ex parte to the court for a removal of the publication. Such applications are made without a need to inform the party against whom the order will be made.

This constitutes a major violation of the free speech because something that is published may be removed without the publisher having the right to assert his right. His only remedy is to apply for the order to be removed.

There is also an attempt to extend the provisions of the Act “to a place outside Malaysia” by any person “whatever his nationality or citizenship”, but the attempt to usurp jurisdiction is simply too ludicrous to comment.

Vijay47: Section 3 defines the various elements that constitute "fake news". But what is the benchmark against which any news is said to be fake?

In cases like this, the usual provisions would be along the lines of "The minister may by a certificate under his hand hold that the relevant news is fake and the court shall accept this as sufficient evidence of the fact stated in the charge."

How will the prosecution prove that the news is fake? Would the prosecuting officer merely have to say, "This news is fake"?

Then again, perhaps even that is not necessary, the accused may have to prove that the news is not fake.

Abasir: The unbearable desperation of KleptoMO1 and his co-conspirators to win GE14 and stay out of jail is reflected with the tabling of this bill.

It will pass regardless of anything that may be said against its passing. No international condemnation will stop it just as none of the reports and analysis of the alleged heist by reputable world media turned the wheels of Umnoised justice.

A delegate at the last assembly of the thieves declared that KleptoMO1 is ‘The Chosen One’. One has to agree with that insight.

All indications are that it will be through his soiled hands that the country will finally be delivered ... as Southeast Asia's first and only failed "Islamic" state.

Cogito Ergo Sum: In its broadest form, this piece of legislation also covers comments by readers.

While in most cases, comments are opinions and not peddled as the truth, it can be construed that the platform, in which a comment is published, is guilty of disseminating fake news.

In its most extreme and ridiculous form, all satirical works can be taken as fake news. We can say goodbye to George Orwell, Jonathan Swift, Zunar, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, WB Yeats, Chinua Achebe and maybe even Shakespeare!

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.