AS media practitioners, it is a great discomfort to find the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) imposing fines on Sin Chew Media Corporation Bhd and Sinar Karangkraft Sdn Bhd.
Are we moving into a less tolerant environment as far as the ability of the media to speak truth to power?
This seems to be the opinion of many that the MCMC, and by extension the Madani government, is contributing to this decline in Press freedom by curtailing the ability of the media to do its job through rules and punitive actions.
This “climate of fear” is on top of a trying time for the media industry, with traditional advertising revenue almost non-existent, having been mopped up by international digital behemoths like Meta and Google, for instance.
Nevertheless, the argument of a negative impact on press freedom can be judged based on the nature of the offences and MCMC’s role and function as a digital content arbiter.
Sin Chew was fined for publishing an incomplete illustration of the national flag, the Jalur Gemilang, while Sinar Karangkraft was fined for disseminating false information about a senior top cop.
The fines were for specific and clearly defined offences and not for critical reporting or political commentaries, or to punish dissent or promote censorship, which would suggest a less tolerant MCMC. They were not acts of political reprisal.
The MCMC has the mandate to enforce the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, which includes provisions for content regulation to ensure accuracy and respect for national emblems.
The fines can be seen to be a reminder of the importance of maintaining journalistic standards, which include fact-checking.
The above-mentioned outfits can surely afford the RM100,000 fines, but for smaller media outlets it would be a serious problem for their survival. Regardless, it seems, there is always the opportunity to appeal.
Some can also argue that the MCMC’s actions are not unprecedented and it had done so before under the provision of the law. Previously, there were many individuals being charged for offences, including spreading false news or information that could have an effect on the public’s well-being.
Why should the media be treated differently, some could ask.
Regardless, journalists long in the tooth will remember in years past how the Press was literally made to be an extension of the government and were at the beck and call of some of its leaders.
Editors were replaced, or sacked, for being critical of the government or its leadership, and those who needed to survive were more circumspect in the way they run their newspapers or television stations.
Newspapers were suspended, some eventually shut down, in the name of national security and that was that. The media industry, at the end of the day, was a business; it was not good for anyone if they were suspended.
The Printing Presses Act and the Official Secrets Act, for instance, were like the Sword of Damocles hanging over the newsroom, suggesting that being accommodating was not really a bad thing.
There was a time when editors were told of the government’s narratives, and their outlets were rather quick to adopt them.
There was an instance, for example, when it was suggested by the government that stories on the haze engulfing the country and reports on the air quality index needed to be curtailed lest tourists get spooked, when one just needed to look out the window to see the air pollution and the respiratory issues facing the population.
During the financial crisis of the 1990s newspapers were told to couch their reports with seemingly euphemism – phrases like “the stock market closed lower” were discouraged, and in its place the media was told to use terms like “the market closed easier”; and the report on the ringgit, which was under attack by currency speculators, were rendered almost Greek to the general public.
Those were challenging times for Press freedom. Now the level of freedom for the media to report, analyse or criticise the government and its leaders is much broader. There are also more media outlets, especially in the digital space, each with its own stance or political leanings
And there seems to be the realisation too that one can no longer influence or control the media as before.
The MCMC actions suggest that media freedom is, in fact, linked to the Press being thorough with the facts and their reports, and the fines are meant to deter and make sure the outlets do better with the things they put out.
Critics of the MCMC action are suggesting a climate of fear within the media, which could lead to self-censorship. However, the actions seem to be specific to factual and technical errors and not targeted at opinion pieces or journalism that holds the government accountable or to report on matters of public interest. — September 22, 2025
Nur Arif Mohamad is a reader of Scoop