Authorities in Malaysia have reiterated that the licensing program is essential in a time of rising crime and a alleged lack of effort by software companies to combat it. In addition, civil society organizations have previously criticized the licensing program as one that could stifle free speech and criticism of the government.
Dr. Shafizan Mohamed, a connections lecturer at the International Islamic University Malaysia, told CNA that” the tech organizations” will likely continue to try to issue or at least change the registration requirements, despite the government’s standing.
” However, given the significant financial repercussions of withdrawing from Malaysia, I do n’t think these firms would be very outright ( in their demands )”.
” NOT HAPPY”
The AIC, which was established in 2010, issued the most recent version of its open letter on Monday ( Aug 26 ), urging the government to reconsider the upcoming licensing regime, and praising the costs associated with compliance and what it claimed was insufficient time to prepare before the regulation starts effective from January 1, 2025.
Firms that do not obtain the class license face jail sentences of up to five years and a maximum fine of RM500,000 ( US$ 115, 650 ). Users could also be fined RM1, 000 for each day they remain unregulated.
AIC likewise warned in its notice that the proposed legislation would deter current investments and discourage future ones, adding that the technology sector is prepared to “work up” with the Malaysian government to address crime on their platforms.
Dr. Shafizan claimed that the letter, which was addressed to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, demonstrated how hostile the technology companies are to the government’s efforts to impose their policies and how they are trying to include their voices heard.
” I do say that this email resembles an industry-wide political protest.” They want to protest, but in a good way, telling the state that they’re not trying to go against or debate the legislation outright”, she said.
They want the government to consider this and give them more time to help, they say.
Dr. Shafizan said the AIC’s email focused on general issues, such as the impact on innovation and expense, in order to convince the government that the negative effects of regulation would outweigh its benefits.
We may see that they were actually focusing on financial impact, investments, and other things like that throughout the letter, she said. These are clearly the main justifications for their use.
Dr. Shafizan believes there is” some weight” to the AIC’s claim regarding the implementation timeline, noting that the public sessions on the licensing program were just finished in June before details were made public in August, five months before police began the following year.
” I think the entire enactment of this regulation was done rather hastily,” she continued.
MCMC FIRES BACK
However, on August 27, Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil emphasized that the licensing process would not be delayed, with the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) stating in its response letter that the five-month grace period was “reasonable and consistent with international best practices.”
This schedule was put together to balance the legitimate need to protect online services from cyber threats with the practical requirements for compliance, according to the statement.
The goal of improving user safety and mitigating the rapidly advancing risks in the digital space would be compromised further by expanding the grace period.
The MCMC refuted suggestions that the licensing regime was” carefully designed” to balance regulatory requirements with the need for flexibility, and rejected suggestions of the negative impact on investment and innovation.
” By holding online service providers accountable, the framework will increase investor confidence, knowing that Malaysia prioritises a stable and legally compliant digital ecosystem”, it said.
The commission also brushed off the notion that the regulations were excessive, comparing it to similar laws like Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act ( POFMA ), and saying that Malaysia’s version was “proportionate”.
The licensing regime only applies to “irresponsible” platforms that meet the required minimum number of users in Malaysia, reducing the burden on smaller or less important services, according to the statement.
There is no reason why a regulatory framework based on safety, security, transparency, and accountability features cannot be accepted and adhered to, MCMC added.” If the online service providers ‘ unilateral initiative to impose community guidelines can be welcomed as a reasonable safety measure, then it should not be,” he added.
REISSUED LETTERS” REFLECT POORLY” ON TECH FIRMS
Dr Benjamin Loh, a senior lecturer in media and communication at Taylor’s University, told CNA that the “main ask” in the AIC’s letter seems to be for platforms to self-regulate, something that he said has not quite worked out.
For instance, he cited the Cambridge Analytica scandal from 2018 when it was discovered that the British consulting firm had used the majority of Facebook users ‘ personal data without their consent, primarily for political advertising. Meta is the parent company of Facebook.  ,
” Personally, the main issues that still need to be addressed, and are paramount, would be increased and improved localised content moderation”, Dr Loh said.
” In the AIC letter, neither how it will operate in these circumstances nor how improved content moderation will be handled. This letter fundamentally ignores the only major issue that needs to be addressed because it is only presented as” costly compliance.”