The internet regulator said action, which was based on its SOP, had been taken following a complaint lodged with them.
“In a post on June 3, the Facebook account owner gave the impression that Teo was behind the decision to block the post.
“MCMC would like to stress that this is not true,” it said in a statement.
It said it took action after an objective review “which found that the contents of the Facebook post contained elements that were false, confusing and went against the community guidelines set by Meta, which operates the social networking site”.
MCMC said one of its responsibilities was to ensure that online platforms were not used to spread fake news and defamatory content.
Lawyer Shamsher Singh Thind claimed earlier today that his Facebook post on May 26 was blocked for Malaysian viewers following a legal request by MCMC.
He said he was informed of this by Facebook yesterday, and that the platform said this followed a legal request by MCMC on grounds that the post had gone “against local laws”.
In the posting, Shamsher wrote: “Congratulations DAP and Hannah Yeoh. Open tender is the way. Tapi dalam kes suami Hannah, tak ada tender, jadi apa yang di-opennya?”
He also shared a snapshot of a tweet by DAP promising to implement open tenders for government contracts as part of its 2018 election manifesto.
In a post yesterday, Shamsher questioned if Teo – who he said had been defending Yeoh since the controversy – was using MCMC to gag critics of her “friends and colleagues”.
Several parties have highlighted the possibility of preferential treatment and conflict of interest in the Selangor government’s selection of Asia Mobility Technologies Sdn Bhd (Asia Mobiliti), one of two firms to run a nine-month proof of concept for a transit project in the Klang Valley.
Asia Mobiliti’s CEO is M Ramachandran, the husband of youth and sports minister Hannah Yeoh.
Earlier today, Shamsher sent a letter of demand to MCMC for allegedly getting Facebook to block his post.
In the letter of demand, Shamsher’s lawyers said MCMC’s move was against freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and that it could be construed as censorship.