COULD any amount of ringgit be enough to penalise someone for words that ultimately led to another person’s death?
The RM100 fine imposed on Shalini Periasamy for posting harmful words on social media directed at the late Rajeswary Appahu, fondly known as Esha, is perplexing.
These words instilled fear in Esha, leading her to reportedly take her own life.
Is RM100 sufficient? Does it serve as a deterrent for Shalini? Will this RM100 act as a warning to others and discourage them from committing cyberbullying?
The case has not only sparked public outrage over the words aimed at the victim but also prompted several ministries to reassure the public that cyberbullying will be addressed.
There may even be a proposal for a new law to properly penalise those who commit cyberbullying, providing a clear definition of the offence.
But when will this happen? When will the new law come into effect? Certainly not today, as Shalini was merely fined RM100 after pleading guilty, and walked out of court smiling.
To the public, the amount seems absurd. However, given that the accused – now convict – was charged under Section 14 of the Minor Offences Act 1955, the magistrate likely applied the maximum fine stipulated under the provision.
Yet, we must remember that Shalini was also investigated under Section 233 of the Multimedia and Communication Act 1998, which carries a maximum one-year jail term or RM50,000 fine, and under Section 506 of the Penal Code for criminal intimidation, which carries a maximum two-year jail term or fine.
These three legal provisions address similar offences, specifically the uploading of offensive materials online.
It should be noted that just a few years ago, a comedy club owner was fined RM8,000 under Section 233 for uploading a video of a joke gone wrong.
There are also common cases of individuals who post comments against those in power or royalty, resulting in imprisonment or fines exceeding RM1,000.
Where does Esha’s life fit into this equation? Clearly, Section 14 of the Minor Offences Act is inadequate.
Furthermore, another individual charged with a similar offence as Shalini was prosecuted under Section 233 of the MCMC Act and Section 509 of the Penal Code.
Why were two different individuals penalised using different legal provisions for the same offence?
The Attorney-General’s Chambers must explain their rationale to the public who are closely monitoring this case and must not stop until justice is truly served for Esha.
This could be achieved by appealing against the magistrate’s verdict or reopening the investigation against Shalini.
The government must act swiftly now more than ever, not only to amend existing laws to curb cyberbullying as emphasised by Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil, but also to ensure those enforcing these laws take the issue seriously.
Credit must be given where it is due. Despite Shalini’s shocking verdict today, the tireless efforts of Fahmi, Digital Minister Gobind Singh Deo, and law minister Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said to initiate these promised amendments should be praised and supported. They recognise the urgency of the matter and have acted promptly.
It will be interesting to see the final form of these amendments and their application in court, as they aim to fulfil promises of online user safety.
Once the amendments take effect, hopefully soon, the government must ensure that the authorities’ execution aligns with the intention and philosophy behind the laws.
Otherwise, these laws will remain mere words on paper. – July 16, 2024
Farah Solhi is a reporter at Scoop