ARTICLE 19 and the Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) express deep concern about an injunction issued against Telegram by the Kuala Lumpur High Court in Malaysia on 11 September to prevent two channels, Edisi Siasat and Edisi Khas, from disseminating ‘harmful’ content. The indictment represents a concerning application of Malaysia’s Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA).
’This injunction risks giving overly broad powers to the authorities, enabling them to further silence dissent and suppress legitimate public interest reporting under the pretext of tackling “harmful content’”. When the authorities use legal tools to silence issues deemed uncomfortable, this sends a warning to whistleblowers, journalists and the public at large – that speaking out comes at a cost. Instead of censoring legitimate opinions, the authorities should be ensuring the highest possible level of protection for political speech and focusing their efforts on addressing real harms, such as tackling online “hate speech”, which requires close coordination with online platforms, not reliance on heavy-handed injunctions,’ said Alfred Wu, Head of Asia Pacific Programme at ARTICLE 19.
As to the allegations of doxxing in particular, we note that any injunction should have focused on those particular pieces of content to meet the standards of proportionality, rather than targeting entire channels. Equally, it is problematic that several reasons are combined to justify the injunction. This does not allow for the level of transparency and scrutiny necessary to fully assess the injunction’s compliance with freedom of expression standards and indicates that the government instead focused on restricting politically inconvenient content. This does not bode well for future government actions.
’Transparency is essential — if content is to be restricted, the public must know which content is being restricted or under question, on what grounds, and what avenues exist to challenge such decisions. Public interest content plays a vital role in holding those in power to account, and suppressing it not only weakens democratic institutions, but also erodes public trust. Without clear and accountable processes, freedom of expression is severely undermined. Restricting any online content must uphold the principles of legitimacy, necessity and proportionality. This action against Telegram could potentially have a chilling effect on the public, who rely on social media for discourse and information. What’s next – would failure to adhere to this injunction lead to the banning of Telegram?’ said Wathshlah Naidu, Executive Director for the Centre for Independent Journalism.
On 19 June, the MCMC filed a suit against the two Telegram channels under the CMA for allegedly disseminating information that could undermine public institutions and threaten public order. The action was the first of its kind against a social media platform provider, particularly since Telegram is a licensee under the Application Service Provider (Class) [ASP(C)] – a licensing framework that took effect on 1 January 2025 and requires internet messaging services and social media to comply with the CMA and its subsidiary legislations.
Last year, ARTICLE 19 and CIJ warned about the dangers of this licensing framework and the far-reaching implications for online free speech, including broad powers given to the Minister of Communication and MCMC to oversee the licensing system, despite not being an independent regulator. Of concern, certain provisions of the CMA – particularly Sections 211 and 233 that penalise ‘indecent, obscene, false, menacing, or offensive content’ – fail to meet the international standards of legality, legitimacy, necessity, and proportionality. Section 233 has regularly been used by the authorities to restrict free speech online concerning race, religion, royalty, and critics of the government.