The Malaysian Bar’s International Malaysia Law Conference (“IMLC”) 2026 took place from 27 to 30 Oct 2026 at MITEC, Kuala Lumpur.
By Kuhan Manokaran, Saha & Associates
The session titled “Freedom of the Press and Government Licensing of Media Platforms” was moderated by Andrew Khoo Chin Hock (Advocate and Solicitor, Andrew Khoo & Daniel Lo), who was joined by three speakers: Dr Venkat Iyer (Journal Editor, Commonwealth Lawyers Association; Former Law Commissioner for Northern Ireland (2008–2015), United Kingdom), Wathshlah Naidu (Executive Director, Centre for Independent Journalism (“CIJ”)) and Saroj K Ghimire (Executive Committee Member, LAWASIA; Managing Partner, Himalayan Lawyers & Associates, Nepal).
Andrew Khoo Chin Hock explained that the session would focus on the press, although the discussion might extend to the wider regulation of online platforms. He asked what the proper role of government in regulating the media should be, and whether it should have any role at all. In response, Dr Venkat Iyer said there was a role, but a very limited one. The threshold for state restrictions on speech should be high, and the state should have to show a clear harm to be averted. He said regulation of the media should be left largely to private parties, with the law dealing with breaches after the event. He described self-regulation as discipline, not self-censorship.
Saroj K Ghimire distinguished between regulating how institutions are run and regulating opinion and information. The first can be accepted, he said, but not the second. He pointed to the ban on social media platforms such as Facebook and TikTok in Nepal, which he said led to a large movement and a change in political power. He compared press self-regulation to the rules of conduct that govern lawyers, while accepting that regulation may be justified where the press endangers national security.
Wathshlah Naidu said regulation should target harmful content, not who may speak. Malaysia has long licensed print media under the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, and recent amendments to the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (“CMA”) require application service providers with more than eight million users to obtain a class licence. Although legacy media is exempt, she said news organisations are still affected because they now produce and distribute content on social media. She also pointed to the conflict of interest in a government that is scrutinised by the media holding wide, sometimes discretionary, powers over what is published. She urged a harmonised approach, given proposals to extend the 1984 Act to digital media, on which CIJ issued a public statement in 2024.
Responding to a question from Andrew Khoo Chin Hock on how other countries reconcile licensing and regulation with press freedom, Dr Venkat Iyer said a distinction must first be drawn between regulation for business purposes, such as radio spectrum, and regulation of content. He cautioned that rules against hate speech can catch legitimate speech, particularly where causing offence is a ground for banning it. He also distinguished platforms that merely carry communications from those where an editor selects and moderates content, and said not every platform operator should be treated as a publisher.
Andrew Khoo Chin Hock then asked how to balance reporting on incidents that may inflame tensions, such as a protest involving the dragging of a cow’s head or student violence in Nepal. Saroj K Ghimire said fast-spreading coverage of buildings being burned during the protests in Nepal last September encouraged others, so limited controls can be justified to protect public safety. Wathshlah Naidu pointed to self-regulation, for example, guidelines on reporting suicide and racist content. Dr Venkat Iyer said incidents must be reported, but in a non-inflammatory manner by trained journalists. Incitement to violence is the red line and a matter for law. He added that it is not the media’s job to help the police, and that media bias is best answered by a multiplicity of voices.
On media councils, Dr Venkat Iyer said the United Kingdom no longer has a press council, only a semi-private self-regulatory body that not everyone joins. Many councils elsewhere, he said, are hybrids of self-regulation and state control, and he would not place much weight on them. Wathshlah Naidu agreed and described the Malaysian Media Council. A committee of media owners, publishers, media workers, journalists and civil society drafted the Malaysian Media Council Act, but the final model was a compromise placing two government representatives on the board. CIJ pushed back, and the government agreed that the two would represent two public media organisations, which she acknowledged still challenged the council’s independence. The larger problem, she said, is the wider legal environment: a council can do little where media face restrictive laws, economic pressure and dependence on government advertising. Dr Venkat Iyer added that threats to press freedom also come from private parties.
In the question-and-answer segment, a member of the audience asked what the government could do in the coming year to strengthen press freedom. Wathshlah Naidu urged a review of laws that restrict the media, including the Official Secrets Act 1972, section 203A of the Penal Code and the regulator’s powers under the CMA. She also called for a right to information law that overrides existing secrecy provisions, noting that the bill tabled in July was referred to a parliamentary select committee on the same day and that three United Nations Special Rapporteurs have raised concerns with the government. Dr Venkat Iyer added that Malaysia needs an independent law reform commission, and said he had served as a Law Commissioner for seven years.
Steven Harris from Australia then cited Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520, in which the High Court of Australia recognised an implied constitutional freedom of communication on government and political matters, and asked whether a constitutional challenge to these laws had been considered in Malaysia. Wathshlah Naidu said it had not been framed that way but was worth exploring, noting that a recent challenge to section 233 of the CMA had failed. She pointed to Article 10 of the Federal Constitution and the test of legality, legitimate aim, necessity and proportionality under international law, and said the real challenge was helping the government apply these principles when drafting legislation.
The panel agreed that regulation should target harmful content and not speakers, and that self-regulation works only if the surrounding laws allow it.
*This article reports on Breakout Session 7, Stream A: Law and Society.