PETALING JAYA: A mere RM100 penalty was imposed on a woman who committed communication offences linked to the death of Hindu rights activist Esha because there is no specific law for cyberbullying in the country, say NGOs and lawyers.
Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO) co-founder Ivy Josiah said it came as a shock that a RM100 fine was imposed on someone found guilty of having contributed to Esha’s death.
ALSO READ: Cyberbullying laws to be reviewed
“The Digital Minister, the Communications Minister and the Minister in charge of Law and Institutional Reform must convene a committee to study if existing laws work and create a new law if existing provisions are insufficient,’’ she said.
Josiah was commenting on a RM100 fine imposed on private nursing home operator Shalini Periasamy by a Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday.
Shalini was charged and punished under Section 14 of the Minor Offences Act, which provides for a maximum fine of RM100 for deliberately uttering vulgarities with the intention to incite anger and disturb peace through her TikTok account “Alphaquinnsha’’.
Esha, whose real name is Rajeswary Appahu, was also a social media influencer.
ALSO READ: Those who used ‘troll farm’ to abuse online identified
Tenaganita’s executive director Glorene Das said the severity of harm caused by cyberbullying cannot be overstated, especially in cases where it leads to a victim’s suicide.
She said a fine of RM100 failed to act as an effective deterrent and does not convey the serious repercussions of cyberbullying.
“Justice for the victim and her family requires a penalty that acknowledges their immense suffering; a RM100 fine trivialises the experience,’’ she said.
All Women’s Action Society (Awam) capacity building director Jayamalar Samuel said, while strong laws are needed as a deterrent, a multi-faceted approach is necessary to effectively address the issue of cyberbullying including shaping attitudes and behaviours, building a foundation of respect, trust and empathy through the education system.
She added the government should prioritise the creation and dissemination of public service announcements (PSAs) that highlight the effects of cyberbullying.
People’s Legal Team founder Dinesh Muthal said the main problem behind the low penalty was because there wasn’t any specific legislation covering cyberbullying.
“Because there aren’t any specific laws gazetted for cyberbullying, the relevant bodies have to look at all the other available laws that are, and can be, attached to cyberbullying,’’ said Dinesh.
Lawyer Harpal Singh who had made a video explaining the matter, said the light penalty was because there was no specific law for cyberbullying in both the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998 and the Penal Code.
“The words uttered by the woman (Shalini) can only be classified as a threat,’’ said Harpal who held a watching brief for Esha’s family when Shalini and Sathiskumar were charged.
He added that in the event Shalini had been charged under a heavier penalty, the case may not have been strong enough to find her guilty of the crime.
And if the case goes to trial with the accused charged under a heavier penalty, there would be glitches as the victim and main witness Esha cannot testify.
“The affected person must be in court to testify and because she is no longer alive, that is why they had to use Section 14 of the Minor Offences Act and not a heavier legislation,’’ said Harpal.
Another lawyer Asiah Abdul Jalil said there must have been a solid reason as to why Shalini did not face the same charges as the other accused B. Sathiskumar.
Lorry driver Sathiskumar, 44, pleaded guilty to a charge under Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998, which comes with a fine of up to RM50,000 or imprisonment of up to one year or both.
He has, however, claimed trial to a second charge under Section 509 of the Penal Code that provides for imprisonment of up to five years, a fine or both, upon conviction. The court has deferred sentencing pending the trial.
