KUALA LUMPUR, July 19 — The clamour for harsher laws to deal with cyberbullying is growing after one social media influencer was fined just RM100 for abusing another who later committed suicide, but experts argue that this must not be the entire solution.

While the government has said it is considering laws to deal with cyberbullying as Malaysia lacks any that specifically deal with this rising problem, the experts said any effective solution must take a multi-stakeholder and multi-pronged approach to avoid only treating the symptom.

The root cause of bullying must also be addressed, they said when noting that there were already various existing laws that could be applied to cyberbullying.

Universiti Putra Malaysia’s Department of Government and Civilisation Studies senior lecturer Murni Wan Mohd Nor said these include:

On July 5, a 29-year-old female TikTok influencer Rajeswary Appahu, known as Esha committed suicide due to cyberbullying, at the People’s Housing Programme (PPR) in Gombak Setia.

Shalini Periasamy, 35, a TikTok user going by the handle @alphaquinnsha pleaded guilty to using vulgar language on TikTok with the intent to incite anger to disrupt peace and was fined RM100, the maximum prescribed under Section 14 of the Minor Offences Act 1955.

Separately, 43-year-old B. Sathiskumar pled guilty under Section 233 of the CMA for making obscene remarks with the intention to hurt others on July 16 using his TikTok account “Dulal Brothers 360”.

Can laws solve cyberbullying?

Industry forum Communications and Multimedia Content Forum (CMCF) chief executive Mediha Mahmood lauded the government for taking the matter seriously, but said the effort must not focus only on punishment.

She said mandating awareness and educational programmes on cyberbullying and digital literacy in schools and workplaces should be considered.

“This includes responsible encouraging empathetic online discourse, recognising the signs of cyberbullying before it escalates, avoiding victim-blaming, and better awareness of how to protect ourselves from online harms, including utilising the safety features made available online,” Mediha said.

She also suggested involving technology companies to deploy tools such as artificial intelligence to detect and prevent bullying, such as by flagging abusive language, harassment and other harmful conduct without disproportionately affecting legitimate discourse.

Improving access to psychological support and counselling for victims should also be a priority, she said.

London-based human rights organisation Article 19’s senior officer Nalini Elumalai also cautioned that trying to legislate a solution as a first response could be problematic given past abuses of existing laws.

“Our primary concern is that, given the country’s history of restrictive legislation, a new cyberbullying offence could end up being another easily abused criminal measure rather than effectively addressing the underlying issue.

“We need to have a holistic, consistent and robust legal framework, policies and practices that address and prevent those issues,” Nalini said.

Nalini also said the vague wording in the CMA has been misused to restrict lawful freedom of expression and that it is inconsistent with human rights standards, thus crafting a law to govern cyberbullying must be assessed thoroughly instead of implementing a “one-size-fits-all” measure.

She also underscored the importance of considering the actual and potential harm to the victims when setting out the criminal repercussions of online harassment.

“It’s crucial to clearly distinguish between harassment and protected expression, such as criticism directed at politicians, public officials, and other public figures.

She also said that the root cause of bullying like imbalanced power dynamics, prejudice and biases must be addressed in the first place.

“Lack of education on civil and human rights, empathy, and societal norms can contribute to bullying. Policies and laws aimed at combating bullying should focus on addressing these underlying issues.

“Often, government and private actors like social media companies narrow the scope of issues like cyberbullying and hate speech as an issue of content moderation.

“This approach ignores the root systematic causes of online gender-based violence, cyberbullying and hate speech. Government shouldn’t wash their hands of addressing systematic and structural discrimination,” Nalini asserted.

The burden is also on the shoulders of social media companies to ensure harmful content is addressed promptly, Nalini added.

Ultimately, victims still need to report these cases for the perpetrators to feel the consequences, Murni urged.

“However, victims of cyberbullying, which may include victims of hate speech, may not report what has happened to them for many reasons such as fear of intimidation, threats made against them, trauma of humiliation,” she told Malay Mail.

https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2024/07/19/what-does-it-take-to-end-cyberbullying-experts-say-will-need-more-than-laws-and-one-size-fits-all-approach/144150