A recent incident involving Era FM’s deejays has hit the headlines for the wrong reasons and was widely shared on social media.
A video on Era FM’s official social media account showing the staff mocking the carrying of kavadi with the chants of “Vel, Vel” while laughing was disrespectful, insulting, and insensitive to the sacred Hindu ritual performed during the annual Thaipusam in devotion to Lord Murugan.
Following a massive public outcry, the video has since been removed from the station’s social media platforms. The three radio deejays involved, along with their management, apologised. The trio also extended their apology by visiting Batu Caves in Selayang, Selangor.
Unfortunately, such major damage cannot be undone. Investigations by the authorities have commenced, with police recording statements from six people – including the three Era FM presenters.
The case is being investigated under Section 298 of the Penal Code for acts that cause disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will on religious grounds. Investigations are also being conducted under Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 for the improper use of network facilities or services.
The urgency of implementing a specific hate crime law in Malaysia is paramount, particularly given the existing but inadequate provisions under the Penal Code, the Sedition Act, and the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) Act.
While these laws may address certain aspects related to hate speech, violence, and discrimination, they are often ambiguous, inconsistent, and insufficient in dealing with the complexity of hate crimes. As a result, law enforcement agencies may struggle to prioritise, investigate, and prosecute these crimes effectively.
The Penal Code has various sections that can be applied to hate crimes, such as assault, criminal intimidation, and defamation. However, it does not include any specific provisions that address hate crimes, making it difficult to classify and prosecute crimes driven by prejudice or bias – such as racism, religious intolerance, or homophobia.
For instance, Section 323 (causing hurt) and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) can be used in cases where hate crimes involve physical harm or threats. However, these sections do not differentiate between crimes committed for biased reasons and those committed for other motives. Without a clear provision to address hate-motivated violence, such crimes are often treated like any other violent crime – losing the societal context that distinguishes them as hate crimes.
Section 298A of the Penal Code addresses acts that disrupt religious harmony, criminalising acts of hatred against religions. While this is an important provision, it is narrowly focused on religious intolerance and does not extend to other forms of discrimination or hate – such as those based on race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. Furthermore, it only targets acts of speech or behaviour directly against religion, rather than encompassing broader acts of hate-driven violence or harm.
The Penal Code does not provide a specific legal framework for recognising and categorising hate crimes, leading to ambiguity in determining which crimes are motivated by bias. For example, a racially motivated assault may be prosecuted under general assault provisions, but it would not be treated with the urgency or specificity it requires. This inconsistency hinders law enforcement from prioritising such cases as hate crimes.
The Sedition Act 1948 is one of Malaysia’s most controversial laws and has been applied to cases involving hate speech, particularly in relation to race, religion, and the monarchy. However, the Act has significant limitations when it comes to addressing hate crimes.
The Sedition Act criminalises any speech or action that incites hatred, contempt, or disaffection toward the government, the monarchy, or certain groups – such as racial or religious groups. The broad nature of the Act means it can be used to target a wide range of speech or activities, including speech that does not directly incite violence or hatred. This lack of specificity can lead to over-enforcement, where individuals who express controversial opinions or engage in political dissent are prosecuted, while actual hate crimes remain unaddressed.
Historically, the Act has been used to suppress political dissent, particularly in cases involving criticism of the government or the monarchy. As a result, there are concerns that the Sedition Act is often applied in a politically biased manner, leading to unequal enforcement. For example, hate crimes targeting minority communities may not be prioritised or investigated with the same intensity as cases involving political speech.
The Sedition Act primarily targets speech and does not address physical violence or discrimination resulting from hate. While it can be used to address inflammatory speech, it does not offer a clear framework for handling hate crimes that involve violent acts or other forms of discrimination.
The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) Act regulates telecommunications and multimedia services in Malaysia, including the internet and social media. This Act is often invoked in cases of online hate speech or the distribution of harmful content that targets specific communities based on race, religion, or other protected characteristics.
The MCMC Act is essential in addressing online hate speech, particularly in the age of social media. Under the Act, individuals who post or share hate speech online can face penalties – including fines and imprisonment. However, the application of this Act to hate crimes is limited in that it primarily focuses on online content and does not encompass offline hate crimes, which can have just as severe consequences for victims and communities.
A major challenge in using the MCMC Act is the difficulty in identifying and prosecuting offenders. Much of the online content that promotes hate speech is often anonymised or hosted on platforms outside Malaysia’s jurisdiction, making it difficult to trace and enforce laws effectively. Additionally, the Act does not specify what constitutes hate speech in sufficient detail, leading to inconsistencies in enforcement.
The MCMC Act primarily addresses online hate speech, leaving out the full range of hate-driven crimes – including offline violence, discrimination, and harassment. This gap leaves certain forms of hate crimes unaddressed by the existing framework.
While these laws address certain aspects of hate-related offences, there are significant ambiguities that make it difficult for law enforcement agencies to prioritise and investigate hate crimes effectively.
More noticeably, the Penal Code, Sedition Act, and MCMC Act do not provide a clear definition of hate crimes. Internationally, hate crimes are defined as criminal acts motivated by prejudice or bias based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or other protected characteristics. In Malaysia, however, the laws only deal with certain aspects of hate – such as hate speech, religious intolerance, or violence – but fail to create a comprehensive framework for understanding and addressing hate crimes in all their forms.
There is a critical need for a dedicated hate crime law to address these gaps and ambiguities.
More importantly, a specific law would define what constitutes a hate crime, covering all forms of hate-driven violence, discrimination, harassment, and speech – whether online or offline. This would allow law enforcement agencies to recognise and classify hate crimes properly, ensuring that perpetrators are charged appropriately.
A hate crime law would set clear guidelines for prioritising investigations and ensuring that hate crimes are addressed swiftly and effectively. By treating hate crimes with the urgency they deserve, law enforcement would be able to protect victims and hold offenders accountable.
Such a law is essential for protecting vulnerable communities, maintaining social harmony, and ensuring justice for all citizens and residents in Malaysia Madani.
The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of Twentytwo13.
