The recent commentary by R Nadeswaran raises an issue that deserves serious attention: racist and religious abuse online must never be tolerated. Any attack against an individual based on race, religion, skin colour or background is unacceptable, more so when it risks inflaming public sentiment and undermining national harmony.

On that principle, there should be no disagreement.

However, the commentary goes further by alleging that the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) has “done nothing” and is practising selective enforcement. That is a serious accusation. It should not be made lightly, and certainly not without establishing the facts.

The absence of a public statement does not mean the absence of action. Enforcement is not measured only by what appears in the media. In many cases, the process involves receiving complaints, assessing the content, preserving digital evidence, identifying account owners, obtaining platform cooperation, recording statements, and determining whether the legal threshold has been met.

These steps cannot always be disclosed publicly, especially when premature disclosure may compromise investigations or prejudice due process.

MCMC does not, and should not, conduct enforcement by public performance.

There is also a basic question that must be asked before concluding that MCMC failed to act: was a formal report lodged with MCMC on the alleged racist and religious abuse? If yes, the matter should be assessed accordingly. If no, then it is misleading to present the absence of visible action as proof of institutional neglect.

This is not to say that MCMC acts only when reports are made. Enforcement can arise from complaints, referrals, monitoring or detection of potential breaches. But the public debate must be grounded in facts, not assumptions.

It is equally important to distinguish between criticism and unlawful content. Criticism of public officials, enforcement agencies or government decisions is part of democratic life. It should not be criminalised merely because it is uncomfortable or inconvenient.

But content crosses a different line when it involves false claims, harassment, threats, abuse, racial or religious provocation, or communications that may cause public disorder or harm. That distinction matters.

Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 is not a shield to protect any individual from criticism. It is a legal provision to deal with the misuse of network facilities or online services, including communications that are obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive in law, and made with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass.

Therefore, the real test is not whether the content criticises one person or another. The real test is whether the content breaches the law.

The commentary also appears to conflate different enforcement tracks. Matters involving 3R sensitivities, alleged fake content, public disorder, sedition, criminal intimidation or misuse of online platforms may involve different agencies, different laws and different evidential requirements. Not every case sits solely with MCMC, and not every investigation can be reduced to a headline comparison.

At the same time, racist attacks against Biruntha Mooruthi, or any Malaysian, should not be dismissed or minimised. If such content exists and breaches the law, action should be taken without fear or favour. No Malaysian should be subjected to racial or religious abuse simply for holding office, accepting appointment or serving in a public role.

But it is unfair to accuse MCMC of complicity merely because one case receives public attention while another has not yet been publicly announced.

The larger principle is clear: no one should be above criticism, and no one should be below protection.

Malaysia’s online space cannot be governed by outrage alone. It must be governed by law, evidence and fairness. Selective enforcement is a legitimate public concern, but that concern must be argued responsibly. Otherwise, the debate itself risks becoming another form of trial by perception.

If the objective is to protect Malaysians from racist and religious abuse, then the responsible path is clear: lodge reports, preserve evidence, allow due process to operate, and demand equal application of the law based on facts.

Accusing institutions without first establishing those facts may generate attention, but it does little to strengthen justice, protect victims or build public trust.