Here’s why the offender in the cyberbullying case of the TikToker who took her own life was ‘only’ fined RM100
Malaysia was rocked recently by the tragic case of a local TikTok influencer who took her own life after being subjected to alleged cyberbullying online. The victim, 30-year-old Ms Rajeswary Appahu, affectionately known as Esha, was found dead in her home on 5 July, a day after she had lodged a police report in Kuala Lumpur over fears of being raped and killed, as well as named 2 individuals who had allegedly tormented her by trolling her on TikTok.
In the police report, the victim also claimed that an individual had harassed her in a TikTok live session using threats and vulgarities.
Since then, 2 individuals were hauled and charged in court, 1 of whom was identified as 35-year-old nursing home owner Shalini Periasamy. However, the seemingly light action taken against Shalini caused the ire of Malaysians as she was only fined RM100 in the cyberbullying case; a punishment that many found to be not befitting of the severity of the crime.
That’s the least of his problems though, as due to him jumping ship to another party, UMNO has threatened to bring Jailani to court and sue him for a whopping RM100 million. So, can UMNO really bring the Rembia ADUN to court and claim damages of RM100 million for defecting from the party? Well, join us as we delve into the relevant laws and precedence below.
So, why was the offender only fined RM100 in this cyberbullying case? Well, join us as we delve into the relevant laws on the matter below.
The offender was only charged under Section 14 of the Minor Offences Act 1955
According to what was reported about the case, the offender was charged at the Kuala Lumpur Magistrate Court for deliberately uttering vulgarities with the intention to incite anger via her TikTok account “alphaquinnsha” at around 4.10am on 1 July.
The charge was made under Section 14 of the Minor Offences Act 1955 below:
As per the provision, those guilty of an offence under the Section shall be liable to a fine of up to RM100. The offender, Shalini, pleaded guilty to the offence and was accordingly fined RM100 by the Court.
Meanwhile, the other individual hauled to court in the case, this time at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court, was 44-year-old lorry driver B Sathiskumar. He was charged for posting lewd comments on TikTok using his profile “dulal_brtothers_360” with the intention to annoy others at 10.12pm on 30 June.
The charge was made under Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 below:
Sathiskumar pleaded guilty to this charge and accordingly, he may face a fine of up to RM500,000 or imprisonment of up to 1 year or both. Furthermore, he may also face an additional fine of RM1,000 for each day the offense continues after conviction.
Besides that, Sathiskumar was also charged under Section 509 of the Penal Code for posting lewd comments with the intention to outrage the modesty of the victim’s mother, 56-year-old Ms Puspa Rajagopal at 10.15pm on 30 June.
However, Sathiskumar claimed trial to the offence and should he be convicted, he may face up to 5 years in jail or a fine or both, as per Section 509 of the Penal Code below:
As Sathiskumar had claimed trial to the 2nd charge and wanted legal representation, Sessions Court Judge Siti Aminah Ghazali postponed sentencing for the first charge to give him time to find a lawyer, with the case set for mention on 16 August.
Why wasn’t Shalini charged under Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 and Section 509 of the Penal Code like Sathiskumar?
A question that many Malaysians asked regarding the case has got to be the different charges faced by both offenders.
Well, as per what was reported in the case, it was alleged that the words uttered by Shalini can only be classified as a threat under Section 14 of the Minor Act 1955.
It is up to the Attorney-General Chambers (AGC) to determine the most relevant charge for Shalini’s offence based on existing laws. In a criminal proceeding, AGC plays an important role as they are the principal prosecuting authority.
Moreover, the AGC are tasked to determine whether or not the evidence provided by the investigating officer is sufficient to prove a prima facie case. Essentially, they decide whether to charge the accused or not without fear or favour.
Accordingly, the AGC may find that unlike the offence committed by Sathiskumar, only Section 14 of the Minor Act 1955 would be a strong charge for the offence committed by Shalini. In other words, in the event Shalini had been charged under a provision with a heavier penalty, the case may not have been strong enough to find her guilty of the crime.
There are no specific laws against cyberbullying in Malaysia
Speaking of which, another major reason behind the ‘light’ punishment faced by Shalini was the lack of any specific laws for cyberbullying in our country, whether it be in the Penal Code, the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 or others.
However, this may change soon as the outrage from this tragic case has spurned the Government into action. 4 separate Ministers, namely the Digital Minister, the Communications Minister, the Home Minister and the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law and Institutional Reform) have vowed to make comprehensive reviews of existing laws to combat cyberbullying.
In fact, a special task force consisting of all 4 Ministries has been set up to undertake a comprehensive review to propose amendments to the Penal Code to combat cyberbullying. The changes are expected to be tabled in Parliament as early as this October.
Moving forward, it’d be interesting to see how Parliament would take up the task of legislating a specific law against cyberbullying in the country and curtail tragic cases such as this from happening.
For more insights into the Malaysian legal system such as this, do make sure to follow us on Facebook and Instagram or visit our official website. You can also read our articles on the popular Malaysian news aggregator app Newswav here.
