The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) has released an official statement clarifying its recent decisions regarding fines imposed on Maestra Broadcast Sdn Bhd, the operator of Era FM, as well as individuals involved in controversial online content. The significant difference in penalties has sparked debate, prompting the commission to provide a detailed explanation of its rationale.
Understanding the Fines: Who Was Penalised and Why?
Public confusion initially arose over the RM250,000 fine, with many mistakenly believing it was imposed directly on Era FM. In reality, the fine was issued to Maestra Broadcast Network Systems Sdn Bhd (MBNS), a subsidiary of Astro with considerable financial resources. The penalty was approved by the Attorney-General’s Chambers and was in accordance with amendments to the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, which took effect on 11 February 2025. These amendments raised the maximum possible fine to RM500,000.
In contrast, comedian Harith Iskander and Facebook user Cecelia Yap were each fined RM10,000 for separate offences related to content involving Islam. Their violations occurred before the legal amendments, meaning their penalties were determined based on the previous maximum fine of RM50,000.
Read: Era FM Fined RM250,000 Over Offensive Thaipusam Video, DJs Remain Suspended
Why Was Maestra Broadcast Fined RM250,000?
The MCMC initiated an investigation into Maestra Broadcast following complaints regarding a video posted on the official Era FM TikTok account (@era.je), which allegedly insulted Hinduism. Since the company was responsible for the content it shared, it was found to be in violation of Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998.
The case was then referred to the Attorney-General’s Chambers, which determined that a fine was the appropriate course of action. Due to the severity of the offence and its potential to incite racial and religious tensions, Maestra Broadcast was fined RM250,000. This fine reflects the amended legal framework, which permits fines of up to RM500,000, imprisonment of up to two years, or both. The government has reinforced its commitment to holding corporations accountable for content that could provoke racial, religious, or royalty-related (3R) issues.
How Was the Fine Determined?
Prior to issuing the fine, the MCMC summoned Maestra Broadcast’s senior management for an explanation and directed the company to strengthen content control measures.
“Maestra Broadcast was also advised to enhance content monitoring, adhere to broadcasting guidelines, and ensure continuous staff training to prevent future violations,” the commission stated.
Despite these corrective measures, the nature of the content and its potential impact on public harmony necessitated a strong response. The RM250,000 fine was deemed appropriate given the potential for unrest, the company’s corporate responsibility, and the revised penalties under the amended law.
Why Wasn’t Maestra Broadcast’s Licence Suspended?
Initially, MCMC issued a notice of intent to suspend Maestra Broadcast’s licence but ultimately decided against it. The company’s immediate corrective actions—including issuing a written explanation, removing the offending content, and making a public apology—were key factors in this decision.
Additionally, suspending the licence would have negatively impacted other radio stations under the same network, such as Melody FM and Mix FM, which were not involved in the controversy.
Why Were Harith Iskander and Cecelia Yap Fined Less?
Harith Iskander and Cecelia Yap were penalised under the legal framework in place at the time of their offences. Since their actions occurred before the amendments took effect on 11 February 2025, their fines were determined based on the previous legal provisions, which capped the maximum penalty at RM50,000.
Both individuals were charged under Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 for making offensive remarks about Islam on Facebook on 18 January 2025. Furthermore, Meta had already removed the offensive content before any official takedown request was made, which may have influenced the decision to impose a lower fine.
MCMC’s Position: Adherence to Legal Precedent, Not Bias
The MCMC has reaffirmed that its decisions were based strictly on legal guidelines, the severity of the offences, and the distinction between corporate and individual accountability.
Maestra Broadcast received a heavier fine due to its status as a corporate entity, which carries greater responsibility for public content. Meanwhile, Harith Iskander and Cecelia Yap were fined in accordance with the legal provisions applicable at the time of their respective offences.
Additionally, the commission has stressed that it remains committed to upholding the law impartially, ensuring that all violations related to sensitive racial, religious, and royalty issues are addressed appropriately within the legal framework.
By providing transparency in its decision-making process, the MCMC aims to reinforce public confidence in its role as a regulatory body and ensure that corporations and individuals alike are held accountable for online content that could jeopardise social harmony.
What are your thoughts on this? Let us know in the comments
*Sources: Visual and Reference Credits to Social Media & various cross-references for context.
FOMO much? Follow our Facebook and Instagram for more updates.