KUALA LUMPUR (June 25): Human rights non-governmental organisation (NGO) Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) has criticised the planned licensing and regulation of social media as an unlawful and authoritarian attempt to stifle online criticism of the government.

In a statement on Tuesday, LFL director Zaid Malek said the news was shocking and disturbing, and yet another clear indication of the government’s bid to stifle and control freedom of speech, continuing the current trend of clamping down on public discourse under the guise of stemming supposed harmful and illegal content.

“The government’s methods are cynical.

“Whilst pretending to act for the public good, they are in fact acting in their self-interest,” he said.

Zaid said criticism by the public of the government online and on social media had been robust and effective, as it should be in any proper democracy.

“Instead of accepting criticism and responding to it, the government is attempting to clamp down on it by oppressive regulation, in the time-honoured manner of an authoritarian regime.

“The government has been deliberately instilling a climate of fear to deter members of the public and the press from airing serious criticisms of the government or its policies.

“It was only a few months ago that the government threatened the public against discussing the widely reported Forest City casino issue, even resorting to charging prominent critics like Chegubard under the infamous Sedition Act for making a Facebook post based on the news reported by Bloomberg,” he said.

Zaid said it was abhorrent that the Cabinet, which consists of members of Pakatan Harapan, a political coalition that owes its survival and success to online news and social media platforms, is now planning severe restrictions on it.

“This is the ultimate betrayal of its reform promises and a failure to uphold constitutional rights.

“We urge the government to retract this despotic new plan to stifle online criticism, specifically any part of the planned regulations that aim to censor or limit discourse on matters of public importance, particularly the purported regulations regarding political content.

“Any such regulations existing would make a mockery of the Constitution and relegate our country to dictatorial rule,” he said.