Will Malaysia’s New Social Media Licence Shield Users or Curb Freedom?

On 1 January 2025, Malaysia implemented a new social media licensing framework via amendments to the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998, marking a significant regulatory shift in the country’s digital landscape. This initiative mandates that social media platforms with over eight million users in Malaysia obtain an Applications Service Provider Class Licence. The government views this move as necessary to curb harmful online content, safeguard user privacy, and hold platforms accountable for the material they host.

Previously, social media and internet messaging providers were exempt from licensing requirements under the Communications and Multimedia (Licensing) (Exemption) Order 2000. This new framework, in mandating licences for platforms that meet the user threshold, signals a departure from that hands-off approach. While the licensing goals appear to promote proactive digital governance, the framework has sparked debate over its potential impact on freedom of expression, fairness, and feasibility of implementation. The feeble parliamentary vote of 9 December 2024, which saw 59 MPs supporting the legislative amendment, 40 opposing, and one abstaining — with 122 MPs absent from the Dewan Rakyat — underscored the contentious nature of the policy and reflected divisions even within the ruling coalition.

The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC), which is responsible for implementing the policy, has stressed that platform self-regulation has been inadequate in mitigating rising digital threats in Malaysia. For instance, during the 2022 general election, racially charged content spread widely across social media, posing significant challenges in a diverse society like Malaysia. The licensing requirements introduced through revisions to Section 211(c) of the CMA 1998 shift the responsibility for managing harmful content from individuals to the platforms themselves. These amendments replace the term “person” with “content application service provider” and significantly increase the maximum fine from RM50,000 (US$11,286) to RM1 million (US$225,721). However, while these amendments can be enforced independently, the licensing requirement introduces broader regulatory control, raising concerns about potential government overreach and its resemblance to past restrictive media laws.

Social media companies are now required to moderate content, prevent the spread of illegal material, and take proactive measures against harmful accounts. Stricter data protection rules have also been introduced to address privacy breaches and misuse of personal information. A key provision of the framework also requires licensed platforms to contribute six per cent of their Malaysian revenue to the Universal Service Provision Fund, an initiative to expand internet access in underserved communities.

Compliance among platforms has been uneven. WeChat by Tencent, became the first platform to secure its licence, followed by ByteDance’s TikTok. More recently, Telegram obtained its licence, and Meta is currently in the final stages of securing it. However, some platforms remain resistant. Google has raised concerns about whether YouTube fits the framework’s definition of a social media or messaging service. X claims its Malaysian user base is below the eight-million-user threshold, a claim that MCMC is investigating. These differences highlight the challenge of applying a universal regulatory framework across diverse digital platforms with unique structures. Many argue that such regulations must balance the need for safety with the operational realities platforms face.

Malaysia’s new framework reflects a global push to regulate digital platforms, but its success hinges on striking the delicate balance between enhancing user safety, protecting freedom of expression, and fostering innovation.  

While the framework aims to enhance online safety, it has sparked concerns about freedom of expression. The amendments grant the government extensive powers to regulate online content, including searches and seizures without a warrant and compelling platforms to disclose user data upon request, all without judicial oversight. This includes expanding the minister’s authority under Section 16(2) to issue regulations. Penalties under this section have also been significantly increased, with fines raised from RM300,000 to RM1 million, imprisonment extended from three years to ten years, and daily fines for continued offences escalating from RM1,000 to RM100,000 per day for platform owners who fail to comply with the law. Section 53, which addresses non-compliance with directives from MCMC, imposes similar heightened penalties. These provisions have fuelled concerns that the framework may go beyond curbing harmful online activities. Critics fear such stringent measures could suppress free expression and discourage open dialogue in Malaysia’s digital spaces.

The use of vague terms like “grossly offensive content” in Section 211 and “profane” or “crude references” in Section 233 raises concerns about broad interpretation and potential misuse. This lack of clarity could lead platforms to over-censor content to avoid penalties, silencing legitimate expressions, including criticism of government policies.

Compounding these concerns is the government’s authority to request content removal, which could further pressure platforms to comply with censorship demands rather than risk punitive action. Malaysia’s declining position on the World Press Freedom Index, which dropped from 73rd in 2023 to 107th in 2024, reflects growing concerns about the country’s shrinking civic spaces. Social media, which has become a crucial space for Malaysians to engage in political discourse, now faces the risk of overregulation. If platforms are pushed to suppress content, it could stifle this vibrant digital landscape, limiting the diversity of voices essential to Malaysia’s democratic fabric.

Malaysia’s new framework reflects a global push to regulate digital platforms, but its success hinges on striking the delicate balance between enhancing user safety, protecting freedom of expression, and fostering innovation. Holding social media platforms accountable for the content they host is undoubtedly necessary, but regulations must be clearly defined and structured to prevent potential misuse. Overly broad or ambiguous rules risk enabling selective enforcement and undue censorship, undermining the very digital freedoms they aim to protect. Achieving this balance is crucial to avoid overreach that could stifle free speech or hinder digital progress.

For this framework to succeed, regulators must define ambiguous terms clearly and enforce policies transparently, ensuring accountability through collaboration with independent national and international oversight bodies. Without this shared commitment, the framework risks being either too lax in addressing digital threats or too rigid, thus curbing legitimate discourse and innovation. The path forward requires cooperation and accountability on both sides to ensure that regulation strengthens digital governance without compromising the open, diverse online spaces essential for Malaysia’s democratic and economic future.

2025/48