The arrest of the two 18-year-olds over a viral video of them expressing them dissatisfaction over this year’s SPM history paper is beyond excessive, disproportionate and may possible create unintended mental stress and and infliction on their overall well-being.
Whether we agree with the content of the TikTok videos, these students need to be educated, guided and empowered rather than to be treated as the criminal and be investigated under archaic and possible oppressive laws.
Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 needs an urgent review, as its broad definition in scope, vague and ambiguous, with entirely subjective terms such as “offensive” and “annoy” makes it particularly prone to abuses, as seen in this case.
Section 233(1)(a) of the CMA is a serious encroachment on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 10(1)(a) of our Federal Constitution. While freedom of speech may have its limitations and restrictions, such restrictions must be reasonable and proportionate. The extremely wide and draconian effect of Section 233(1)(a) renders it an impermissible restriction, inasmuch as it unduly negates the exercise of the right to speech and expression.
What is more important in this case in the well being of the student and child, which such disproportionate action may be causing unnecessary stigma mental stress and fear, contrary to the spirit to educate and mould our young students.
That is why I call for all investigation on the matter to be dropped, and the students be given the necessary guidance and support, rather than being intimidated and treated like a criminal.