A viral video shared on the official social media platforms of Era FM, one of the most popular radio stations in Malaysia, landed the station, its DJs and parent company Astro in hot water recently.
The video, believed to have been recorded within the premises of the radio station, showed three Era FM DJs - Nabil Ahmad, Azad Jasmin and Radin Ahmad - alongside several other staff members laughing and chanting "Vel Vel" while one of the DJs mimicked a ritual performed during a Hindu religious festival.
A majority of the public found the video offensive and alleged that the individuals were mocking Hinduism by performing the actions seen in the video. In fact, the trio's actions were also called out by Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil, Digital Minister Gobind Sigh Deo and MIC Deputy President Datuk Seri M. Saravanan, just to name a few.
Following backlash, the video was removed from the radio station's social media pages, prompting Astro, Era FM and the three DJs to issue a public apology.
As reported by Malay Mail, Astro also announced that the three personalities have since been suspended until further notice as it conducts an internal review of the matter.
Moreover, the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) revealed that they have received six police reports on the video as of 4 March 2025, with Bernama quoting the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Tan Sri Razarudin Husain as saying that the police are now investigating the three DJs.
With that in mind, what legal actions can the trio face for the viral video? Here are several legal provisions in Malaysia that are relevant to the incident below.
Offences prescribed under the Penal Code
Given that the incident involves an alleged mocking of a religious ceremony, one relevant legal provision is Section 298 of the Penal Code below for wounding the religious feelings of others.
As per the above provision, it is established that it is an offence for anyone to make any gestures with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person.
Should an individual be convicted under Section 298 of the Penal Code, they may face imprisonment of up to 1 year, a fine, or both.
Besides that, Section 504 of the Penal Code below is also relevant, as the provision deals with the intentional insult to provoke a breach of the peace.
As per the provision above, it is an offence for anyone to intentionally insult or know it to be likely that such provocation will cause a break of public peace; something arguably the trio had committed.
Should an individual be charged and convicted under this provision, they may face imprisonment of up to 2 years, a fine, or both.
Section 233(1) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 for offensive communication
Besides that, given that the video was posted online, Section 233(1) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 below for improper use of network facilities or applications to make an obscene communication may also apply to the case.
Applied to the controversial video, it can be argued that the trio had committed an offence under Section 233(1)(a) of the Act by using the means of a network facilities or network service or applications, in this case, social media platforms, to make a communication that is offensive with the intent to annoy or harass another person.
Should an individual be charged and convicted under this provision, they may face up to 1 year in jail, a fine of up to RM50,000, or both.
Not only that, they may also be liable to a further fine of RM5,000 per day if the offence is continued after conviction, as per Section 233(2) of the Act. However, this is rather academic, as the video has already been removed from Era FM's social media platforms.
Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act 1948
Additionally, given that the incident touched upon the so-called 3R (Religion, Race, Royalty) sensitivities, Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act 1948 below may also be applicable.
Based on the video and what was reported about the incident, it can be argued that the trio had committed an offence as prescribed under Section 4(1)(a) of the Sedition Act 1948, which is to do an act with a seditious tendency.
Should an individual be charged and convicted under this provision, they may face up to 3 years in jail, a fine of up to RM5,000, or both.
Who decides on the charges, if any, that the DJs will face?
As of the time of writing, IGP asserted that the trio is only being investigated under Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998.
However, this doesn't mean that they will automatically be charged under the provision or that they won't be charged with committing other offences under different legal provisions.
It is up to the investigation officer to recommend any other legal provisions during the charge, if any, of the trio in court.
Ultimately, it is up to the Attorney-General Chamber (AGC) to determine the best charge(s) based on the investigation findings.
With all of that established, what do you guys think about the whole situation Share your two cents on the incident in the comments section.
Jamie is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact Newswav.
