Ius 2022

Internet Users Survey 2022 | 1
Internet
Users Survey
2022
SURUHANJAYA KOMUNIKASI DAN MULTIMEDIA MALAYSIA

MALAYSIAN COMMUNICATIONS AND MULTIMEDIA COMMISSION
ISSN 1823-2523
2 | Internet Users Survey 2022
© MALAYSIAN COMMUNICATIONS AND MULTIMEDIA COMMISSION, 2022
The information or material in this publication is protected under copyright and, except
where otherwise stated, may be reproduced for non-commercial use provided it is
reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. Where any material is
reproduced, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC), as the
source of the material, must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged.
The use of any image, likeness, trade name and trademark in this publication shall not be
construed as an endorsement by the MCMC of the same. As such, the inclusion of these
images, likenesses, trade names and trademarks may not be used for advertising or product
endorsement purposes, implied or otherwise.
Published by:
Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission

MCMC Tower 1, Jalan Impact, Cyber 6, 63000 Cyberjaya,
Selangor Darul Ehsan
Tel: +603 8688 8000

Fax: +603 8688 1000
Aduan MCMC: 1-800-188-030
http://www.mcmc.gov.my
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 7

Background & Objectives ........................................................................................... 11
Methodology ............................................................................................................... 12
Challenges .................................................................................................................. 14
Findings....................................................................................................................... 15
Percentage distribution of Internet users and non-Internet users ................................. 15
Non-Internet users by age ............................................................................................. 16
Reasons not using Internet, by age ................................................................................ 17
Internet access and use ................................................................................................ 20
Broadband access......................................................................................................... 28
Online activities ............................................................................................................. 33
Online content sharing .................................................................................................. 40
Online security and privacy ........................................................................................... 48
Online behaviour among children and parental control................................................. 63
COVID-19 impact on Internet usage.............................................................................. 74
Predictive Analysis ..................................................................................................... 86
Predict whether someone will share content online ..................................................... 86
Predict whether someone feels secure when using the Internet ................................... 89
Predict whether someone has experienced cyberbullying ............................................ 91
Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 93
Appendices ................................................................................................................. 95
Tables and Figures .................................................................................................... 120
Executive Summary
The Internet User Survey 2022 (“IUS 2022”) is part of a series of surveys by MCMC
that started in 2012. The primary aims are to track Internet access and use, as well
as to understand the evolving behaviours and trends of Internet use. The findings of
IUS are relevant for policy development and industry growth as Malaysia pivots to
the digital economy.
IUS 2022 was carried out when Malaysia was on the road to recovery from COVID-
19 pandemic; during which a significant number of activities shifted to the Internet.
As society embraces technology and digital transition more readily due to the
pandemic, the change in user behaviours and trends of Internet use is expected to
accelerate faster.
More importantly, the findings of IUS 2022 can form early data points to assist
policymakers in ascertaining the extent of access vulnerability of di erent groups,
should key public services (for example education) transition significantly to the
digital platform.
IUS 2022 reached a sample of 2,401 Internet users and 384 non-Internet users at
the national level and a total of 384 Internet users for each state to meet the
requirement for state-level surveys.
Respondents were selected randomly, and the interviews were carried out through
telephone interviews.
The survey continues to track primary metrics for Internet access and usage; which
includes duration of access, access by device and di erent types of Internet usage.
The data from IUS 2022 adds on to a running time-series from the first Internet user
survey in 2012.
IUS 2022 also focuses on emerging Internet issues as a continuation of previous

surveys; namely online content, online child safety and online privacy/security.
Finally, IUS 2022 added a new area of COVID-19 impacts on online activities to
gauge its impact on the public’s Internet usage behaviour. The pandemic has led to
a surge in the use of the Internet due to the nationwide lockdowns.
Background
& Objectives
The Internet Users Survey (IUS) is a series of purpose-built surveys conducted since 2012
to monitor Internet activities and understand the trends and tendencies among users.
Consequently, the surveys have provided steppingstones thus far, to gauge Malaysia’s
standing in Internet adoption in recent years.
IUS 2022’s objectives were:

1. To estimate the number and percentage of Internet users in the country
2. To study the attitudes and behaviours of users towards Internet use
3. To identify the recent trends in Internet usage
IUS 2022 provides extra highlights on behavioural trends of Internet use since 2012.
The data points collected from IUS 2022 are used to build predictive models to profile
Internet users to keep abreast with the evolving nature of Internet use’s sophistication in
society.
Thus, IUS 2022 intends to facilitate stakeholders in assessing and comprehending better
the extent of Internet usage in Malaysia. This can lead to better strategies and initiatives that
are necessary to transition society to embrace digitalisation in light of the post-pandemic’s
new normal.
Methodology
The sample population was randomly selected from mobile-cellular users and further
stratified by ethnicity, gender, age and state. The sample population was uploaded to a
computer system that randomly dials respondents to meet the stratification requirements
to ensure the respondents are representative of the population. IUS 2022 was canvassed
and administered through telephone interview.
Fieldwork for this survey started on 31st December 2021 until 13th May 2022. The
fieldwork took longer than anticipated due to the National Recovery Plan on reversing the
damage from the COVID-19 pandemic. Although Malaysia transitioned to endemicity on
April 1, the survey had to be administered remotely to abide by all the SOPs. Apart from the
longer time taken to complete the fieldwork, the remote administration of the survey did not
compromise the statistical accuracy and requirements.
IUS 2022 reached a sample of 2,401 Internet users and 384 non-Internet users at the
national level and a total of 384 Internet users for each state to meet the requirement for
state-level surveys.
There was only one stage of sample selection, as the survey adopted a stratified random
sample. Sampling was done with probability proportional to the strata defined in terms of
ethnicity, gender, age and state.
Data quality check was administered throughout the survey fieldwork. Basic frequency
count was computed to assess the results. Cross- tabulation was imposed between
relevant indicators to identify significant relationships that would deduce meaningful
inferences pertinent to the objectives.
The data had been weighted to match nationality (Malaysian and non-Malaysian), ethnicity,
gender, age and state where the 2022 population estimates from Department of Statistics
Malaysia (DOSM) serves as the auxiliary information.
Important findings are featured in this report, complemented by supporting charts and
tables for the convenience of readers. Comparisons across time were established in the
analysis where available. The findings on current trends were analysed and contextualised
against current developments in Malaysia and around the world. Information from external
sources is included as supplementary data to support any discovery.
Full results of the survey are appended in the form of percentage tables at the end.
Challenges
Although Malaysia had transitioned to endemicity and began to ease more COVID-19 curbs,
including lifting many movement restrictions and rules, these were carried out in stages
since the safety precautions in health and care settings against COVID-19 were still
factored in. The fieldwork was canvassed and administered remotely to ensure the IUS
2022 could be completed on time.
In addition, the remote canvassing presented a new complication. The response rate was
lower at times, especially during festive and school opening seasons. This could also
suggest that Malaysians were getting ready to return to normalcy, indicating that they were
already seeing the end of the pandemic and adapting to a new norm in endemicity.
Besides the longer time taken to complete the fieldwork, the survey had to adopt specific
time slots to ensure calls were made only in the timeframe that had produced the highest
response rate. While this improved the response rate, it stretched call agents’ working hours
into the night and weekend, well beyond the regular o ice hours.
Stratified random sampling also led to di erent response rates for di erent states and
strata. Certain states such as Perlis and Pahang experienced below-average response rates
and more call agent hours had to be dedicated to meet the stratified sampling requirement
for these states.
Findings
Percentage distribution of Internet users and non-Internet users
Non-Internet user Internet user 92.7%

87.4% 88.7%
76.9%
66.6%
64.1%
35.9%
33.4%
23.1%
12.6% 11.3%
7.3%
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
Figure 1 : Internet users and non-Internet users over the years, 2012-2022
The survey indicates that the percentage of Internet users in 2022 was estimated at 92.7%,
an increase of 4.0% from 88.7% in 2020.
The percentage of Internet users appears to grow more visibly in 2022 as compared to the
last 3 years, an inevitable trend that can be observed across the globe ever since the
pandemic started in 2020. The outbreak of the COVID-19 virus highlights the prominent role
of the Internet which accelerates the process of digitization in the crucial areas of
economic, political and social life.
Nationwide lockdowns had entailed a rise in Malaysians acclimatizing and adopting the
Internet to communicate and carry out daily tasks remotely from home. As reported by the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the COVID-19 pandemic witnessed the
number of Internet users grew to 4.9 billion in 2022 worldwide from 4.1 billion in 2019 as a
direct impact of remote work and remote education within the reach of many1.
As for non-Internet users, it can be observed that the percentage of the section of this
population declined by as much as 4.0% in 2022 from 2020. The recent percentage stood
at 7.3% from 11.3% in 2020. It is worth noting that this trend has continuously decreased
ever since this survey started in 2012.
Non-Internet users by age
Figure 2 : Percentage of non-Internet users, by age group
1 ITU 2021 Press Release. https://www.itu.int/en/mediacentre/Pages/PR-2021-11-29-FactsFigures.aspx

Reasons not using Internet, by age
Not enough time Lack of interest Lack of confidence or skills No device Too old to learn
58.1%
52.5%
46.3%
41.4%
37.0%
33.9%
32.7%
32.5%
30.1%
27.8%
26.3%
24.0%
16.7%
11.9%
7.3%
6.3%
2014* 2016* 2020 2022
* No data for ‘No device’ and ‘Too old to learn’
Figure 3 : Reasons for not using Internet across years, 2014-2022
Furthermore, the findings demonstrate that the top three reasons for not using the Internet
among non-Internet users were lack of interest (37.0%), too old to learn (27.8%) and lack
of confidence or skills (26.3%).
Despite ‘lack of interest’ being the most popular option in 2022, this figure declined quite
substantially from 2020, from 52.5% to 37.0%.
Yes No Don't know
2.6%
2022 90.0% 7.4%
2020 8.0% 87.0% 5.3%
Figure 4 : Non-Internet users who intend to use Internet in the future
IUS 2022 identified that only a small percentage of non-Internet users (2.6%) intended to
use the Internet again in the future, and this figure dropped by 5.4% since 2020. On the other
hand, a large majority of non-Internet users thought otherwise (90.0%), increasing by 3.0%
since last year.
Among those who intended to use the Internet again in the future, 64.2% of them would
need someone to assist them to go online while 23.4% do not.
64.2%
23.4%
12.4%
Would need someone Can go online again Don't know/Not sure

to help me on my own
Figure 5 : Non-Internet users who intend to use Internet again

53.2%
Have used the Internet
for more than 10 years
26.3%
for between 5 to10 years
17.9%
for less than 5 years
Internet access and use
Years of experience with Internet
The findings demonstrate a pronounced spike of more than 10% among Internet users who
claimed to have been using the Internet for more than 15 years, from only 10.2% in 2020 to
26.1% in 2022.
From a broader perspective, Malaysia saw an increasing trend of people disclosing that they
have been using the Internet for a minimum of 10 years, accumulating a total percentage of
53.2% in 2022 compared to only 28.2% the preceding year.
2020 2022
27.1%
26.1%
21.3%
19.1%
18.0%
15.8%
12.2%
10.2%
8.6%
7.7%
5.9%
2.5%
1.6%
0.4%
Less than 1 to less 3 to less 5 to less 7 to less 10 to less 15 years

1 year than 3 than 5 than 7 than 10 than 15 and more
years years years years years
Figure 6 : Years of experience with Internet

Duration of daily use of Internet
A look at the average hours of daily use of Internet in 2022 reveals that 38.5% of Internet
users engaged with online activities for a minimum of 9 hours per day, a slow decrease from
the previous year (42.0%). However, when taking into account the margin of error, the trend
for 2022 is actually constant to 2020.
The steady trend likely reflected the continuous dependency on Internet streaming and
consumption of digital content as some of learning institutions and workplaces were still
not fully opened.
Further, the donation of online devices to underprivileged communities by the government

and various NGOs had also encouraged Internet usage amongst school and university
students as part of their learning activities during the pandemic.
More than 11.7% 2022

18 hours 11.5% 2020
13 to 18 7.1%
hours 9.0%
9 to 12 19.7%
hours 21.5%
5 to 8 25.0%
hours 28.7%
1 to 4 26.6%
hours 24.9%
Less than 3.9%

1 hour 1.3%
6.0%
Don't know
3.2%
Figure 7 : Hours spent on the Internet

Duration of daily use of Internet, by age
16.1% Less than 20

15.3% 20s
More than 13.7% 30s
18 hours 9.1% 40s
10.4% 50s
5.3% 60s
4.4%
10.5%
13 to 18 8.3%
hours 9.5%
2.7%
1.3%
13.1%
24.5%
9 to 12 27.0%
hours 19.6%
14.6%
5.6%
40.6%
30.0%
5 to 8 30.5%
hours 21.5%
16.1%
14.5%
22.9%
15.5%
1 to 4 14.2%
hours 29.9%
44.1%
48.8%
Less than 0.1%

1 hour 3.1%
4.7%
15.7%
2.9%
4.2%
5.1%
Don't know
7.2%
7.5%
8.7%
Figure 8 : Hours spent on the Internet, by age group

The breakdown by age shows that the highest percentage of people in their 20s used the
Internet within the range of 5-8 hours while respondents who were older (those in their 50s
and 60s) were inclined to do so for only 1 to 4 hours.
Categorisation of Internet users by the length of access
The decrease in hours spend on the Internet usage is probably due to the survey fieldwork
was canvassed towards the end of Movement Control Order (MCO) where the government
began to gradually ease COVID-19 curbs, including lifting many movement restrictions and
rules, reflecting lesser dependency on the Internet used for daily activities.
Table 1: Categorisation of Internet users by the length of access
Year Mild Regular Heavy
2022 30.5% 44.7% 18.8%
2020 26.2% 50.1% 20.5%
2018 48.8% 37.3% 13.8%
Notes:
For the purpose of this survey, the Internet users are categorised as follows:
Mild : Spend less than 5 hours a day
Regular : Spend 5 to 12 hours a day
Heavy : Spend more than 12 hours a day
Figure 9 : Location of access

More than 80% of Internet users (82.3%) stated their own home as the most frequent place
to go online, perhaps not surprising considering that MCO was not fully lifted.
This figure saw an increase of 11.8% of Internet users accessing the Internet from home
since 2020. This was followed by ‘On the go’, which was the second most popular option
with more than 50% of Internet users opting for this choice.
The ‘Free Wi-Fi anywhere’ became the least favoured option among respondents, replacing
‘another person’s home’ in 2020. This could be due to advised by the government to avoid
public places for safety purposes.
Another thing worth highlighting is the increase of 8.7% of people accessing the Internet
from their workplace, indicating that some corporate o ices might have started
implementing a hybrid system as the country moves toward endemicity.
of those who access the Internet

from home are using fixed
broadband, a 9.8% increase
from 2020
Broadband access
Figure 10 : Internet access from home
For Internet users who accessed the Internet from the comfort of their own home, more
than half stated that they utilized mobile broadband (63.4%).
A more thorough observation of the data also shows that there was an increase of 9.8% for
people accessing the Internet using a fixed broadband as compared to the alternative.
One reason that might possibly explain the sudden spike in demand for fixed broadband
among Internet users is that it was a more reliable medium to access stable and functional
Internet connection – users are less likely to experience slow speed Internet and data usage
caps. Fixed broadband is much more suited to situations where people need to work or
study from home – fixed broadband often acquires more bandwidth, enabling users to
download heavy files and stream video at high speed.
Furthermore, the implementation of the national digital infrastructure plan, Pelan Jalinan
Digital Negara (JENDELA) greatly contribute to making fixed broadband connectivity more
readily available to the public. The JENDELA project, a joint e ort between MCMC and
service providers, highlights the need for robust, high quality and a ordable digital
connectivity throughout the country, with a particular focus in rural areas.
From September 2020 – December 2022, the industry players collectively fiberized
2,780,580 premises, upgraded 37,977 base stations to 4G technology, built 1,778 new
mobile towers and enabled Satellite Connectivity to 839 sites to enhance the overall digital
connectivity and experience. As of 31 December 2022, approximately 7.74 million
premises have access to fibre broadband while 96.92% of all populated areas have access
to 4G network2.
Despite the noticeable increase of fixed broadband, one can still see that mobile broadband
was the most preferred choice of broadband type among the majority of Internet users.
Fixed broadband Mobile broadband
84.0%
74.3%
64.9% 65.3%
54.5% 56.4%
49.6%
32.6%
2020 2022 2020 2022

Rural Urban
Figure 11 : Access the Internet from home, by strata
Comparing IUS 2020 and IUS 2022, fixed broadband usage at home increased in both rural
and urban areas by 17.0% and 10.8% respectively. On the other hand, usage of mobile
broadband from home decreased by 19.1% in rural area and 17.9% in urban. Mobile
broadband usage experienced a noticeable decline due to lockdown, whereby more
Internet users used fixed broadband as an access to the Internet.
2
JENDELA Phase 1 Concluding Report – h ps://myjendela.my/Sitejendela/media/Doc/JENDELA-Phase-1-Concluding-Report.pdf
Personal hotspot
There was a noticeable increase of 9.0% among Internet users who accessed personal
hotspots with Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. As addressed in the last 2020 survey report, this finding
is consistent with the widespread use of mobile broadband and it explains why mobile
broadband remains the more popular choice among Internet users. The capability of
smartphones to support mobile tethering for users to access the Internet on other devices
makes mobile broadband the preferred option.
2020 2022
71.1%
62.1%
37.9%
28.9%
Yes No
Figure 12 : Experience with personal hotspot

Device to access Internet
When Internet users were asked what kind of devices they use to access the Internet, there
was a slight decrease of users who claimed so through smartphones, from 98.7% to 94.4%.
However, it remains the most popular choice of device to access the Internet with it
dominating the chart.
On the flip side, there was an increasing trend among those using other devices, but this
was particularly more evident among PC/Desktop, Tablets and Smart TV users. The
percentage of Internet users accessing the Internet from PC/Desktop increased from
16.2% in 2020 to 20.6% in 2022 while tablets increased from 6.4% to 14.4% within the
same period. Internet users who accessed the Internet using smart TV increased from a
mere 5.9% to 21.7%. The surge in work-from-home and study-from-home had meant good
news for the laptop and tablet market and this was reflected in the data collected. Similarly,
the demand for Smart TV skyrocketed because the trend toward digital entertainment
peaked at the height of lockdowns.
Figure 13 : Device to access Internet

+13%
used the Internet to communicate

by voice or video (compared to
81% in 2020)
+18%
used the Internet to get information

(compared to 74% in 2020)
Online activities
Based on the chart, a vast majority of Internet users in Malaysia use the Internet for social
purposes. The percentage of Internet users who communicate by text increased by 0.3%,
from 98.0% in 2020 to 98.3% in 2022.
The drastic jump by 18.1% in the Internet usage to get information might be an indication
that the Internet has indeed become an integral tool for Internet users studying and working
from home with devices close at hand.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, there was an increase in Internet users who watch or download
videos online, at 89.6%, a slight increment of 1.9% from 2020.
Figure 14 : Online activities

Figure 15 : Other online activities
According to IUS 2022, when respondents were asked what other purposes they use the
Internet for, online shopping and selling goods online could both be seen on the rise —
66.6% and 13.8% respectively.
Media consumption
According to IUS 2022, 53.7% of Internet users listening or downloading music or online
radio on a daily basis, increased by 5.4% from 2020. Further, a slight increase was also
noted in watching or downloading video or online TV as well as reading online publications
on a daily basis with 0.3% and 0.7% respectively.
Nevertheless, online media consumption on a weekly basis witnessed a declining trend in

2022, compared with 2020.
Daily Weekly Monthly Few times a year Once a year Don’t know/Not sure
2020 2022
58.4%
58.1%
56.9%
56.2%
53.7%
48.3%
33.9%
33.0%
32.5%
28.5%
27.5%
26.5%
11.8%
10.4%
8.9%
8.7%
5.8%
0.3%
1.1%
6.0%
1.4%
0.2%
1.0%
6.9%
1.9%
0.9%
1.6%
5.2%
0.9%
1.6%
3.8%
0.5%
1.4%
3.1%
0.9%
1.8%
Listen or Watch or Read online Listen or Watch or Read online
download music download video publication download music download video publication
or online radio or online TV or online radio or online TV
Figure 16 : Online media spent

Digital economy
Figure 17 : Pyramid of transaction-based and non-transaction-based online activities
Furthermore, the categorization of di erent types of online activities allows an insight into
the pervasiveness of the digital economy.
The di erent types of online activities can be classified using a pyramid diagram; with the
base representing non-transaction-based online activities, such as using the Internet to
communicate and keeping social networks, and the summit representing transaction-
based online activities, such as banking, shopping, etc.
IUS 2022 witnessed a noticeable gap between transaction-based activities and non-
transaction-based activities. Multiple series of lockdowns have had a profound e ect on
the online behaviour of Internet users and this trend continues to this day.
On a positive note, IUS 2022 saw an increase in transaction-based online activities, which
was consistent with last year’s findings. The initiative launched by the government called
MyDIGITAL3 might be a contributing factor to this trend as it aimed to assist the country’s
transformation into a digitally driven national economy on top of achieving sustainable
socioeconomic development. This initiative was set in motion in early 2021 hence the
country’s vision to become more prominent in the digital economy is expected to grow
faster and improve in the near future with greater digital connectivity and robust
telecommunication infrastructure.
3
MyDigital and 4iR https://www.malaysia.gov.my/portal/content/31187
Social networking and comunication applications
Figure 18 : Social networking applications
It was reported that Facebook saw a percentage decline in the number of Malaysian users
from 91.7% in 2020 to 87.5% in 2022. This finding was in line with a report disclosed by
Meta showing how Facebook has lost about 500,000 to 1,000,000 daily active users and
reported its slowest revenue growth in a decade, marking Meta’s worst ever performance
on Wall Street4. This could be due to the younger generation, including those in Malaysia,
gradually moving away from Facebook and shifting toward newer social media platforms
instead, further weakening Facebook’s top spot.
Given the ever-increasing popularity of new social networking sites, LinkedIn unexpectedly
experienced a growth spurt in the number of people using its platform, from 10.8% in 2020
to 21.6% in 2022.
4
How many Users is Facebook Actually Losing? https://www.makeuseof.com/how-many-users-facebook-
losing/#:~:text=So%20How%20Many%20Users%20Have,depending%20on%20the%20news%20source
The chart also demonstrates that TikTok’s performance soared in 2022 with a remarkable
increase in popularity, achieving growth that outperformed Twitter (rebranded to 'X') with
49.7% users, compared to Twitter users of only 40.9%. TikTok snowballed into one of the
most popular applications in 2022 and its growth has been unprecedented with one billion
active users reported in September 2021 worldwide. According to the latest TikTok user
statistics5, the app currently has 386.6 million users aged 18 to 24, suggesting that it has
earned immense traction among younger users and is expected to be the fastest-growing
social media platform among marketers in the few years to come.
5
TikTok Sta s cs Marketers Need To Know. h ps://www.shopify.my/bLog/ ktok-
sta s cs#:~:text=The%20Latest%20TikTok%20user%20sta s cs,Largest%20of%20aLL%20age%20groups
Figure 19 : Social networking applications
In IUS 2022, WhatsApp continued to be the most popular choice for communication with it
dominating over 90% of users in 2022, a consistent trend that could be observed since
2018.
On the flip side, WeChat and Skype witnessed its user base declining, while Telegram
witnessed a surge in popularity to 56.4% in 2022 from 40.0% in 2020. This could be
attributed to WhatsApp facing intense scrutiny following controversy over privacy settings
that prompted a significant number of users migrating to Telegram6.
The messaging service has been under fire since it updated its terms and conditions,
granting permission for the app to share user data with its parent company Facebook. This
move was met with backlash from users who claimed their private data was breached and
compromised.
Furthermore, the Zoom app also earned substantial popularity in 2022 with 21.6% users
reported using the app — although it was not included in the previous editions of IUS.
6
Is Telegram really safer for your data than WhatsApp? h ps://www.alstonasquith.com/is-telegram-really-safer-for-your-data-than-
whatsapp/
Online content sharing
Types of online content shared
The findings revealed there is no change in the types of internet content shared by Internet
users especially at the top three contents shares. Despite of this trend, the top three
contents share shows are decreased of 4.1%, 10.7% and 11,5 % respectively. The IUS
2022 also showed that educational content has decreased 6.9% compared to 2020.
In addition, the most noticeable increase was 13.9% in political policy issues followed by a
rise of promotion and discount at 3.5 %.
Figure 20 : Types of content shared online

Purpose of sharing online content
Furthermore, in comparison with 2020, only 70.8% of users share content because it is
beneficial for them in 2022 versus 71.9% in 2020. The decrease is also more pronounced
for the sharing of raising awareness with 38.6%, as opposed to 53.6% in 2020.
It appears that the finding supports the prevailing assumption that Internet users become
more vigilance when it comes to content available on the Internet.
Figure 21 : Purpose of sharing content online

Online content sharing platform
For all the sharing platforms listed, the number of users actively sharing content across
di erent mediums have decreased steadily since 2020.
Figure 22 : Online content sharing platforms
As much as 67.2% of Internet users in 2022 shared contents online through social media,
a drop from 86.7% in 2020. However, this medium remains the most popular method to
share online contents.
The ease of sharing functions available on social media that require minimal e ort from
users would most likely be the reason why social media was the most preferred online
content sharing platform by Internet users.
Action taken before sharing content online
IUS 2022 identified a shift in Internet users’ behaviour before sharing content online. This
supports the general hypothesis that the concerns over the harm of the Internet are on the
rise and Internet users are taking appropriate precautions to avoid harmful consequences.
2020 2022
79.0% 77.9% 76.5%

72.4%
62.9% 63.0%
54.9% 56.8%
Verify whether Ensure the Understand Ensure the content

the content is validity of the the content is not obscene,
from reliable content menacing or
source or not offensive
Figure 23 : Actions taken before sharing content online
The numbers garnered in 2022 suggest that people have become more cautious in sharing
online contents compared to the last survey with an increase in the following actions; they
ensured the content was not o ensive (56.8%), made sure it was valid (77.9%), and verified
whether it was reliable (79.0%). This could be due to the fact that more people are now
more aware of the risks of sharing their personal information online or using social media
platforms for inappropriate purposes.
Frequency of sharing content online
In response to the question of how frequently they share online content, there was a
decreasing trend in people sharing it daily and weekly and an increasing trend in those
sharing it monthly.
Although experiencing a drop, the majority of Internet users (46.0%) shared content on a
weekly basis, while 16.2% did so on a daily basis.
2020 2022
52.2%
46.0%
30.4%
20.4% 20.1%
16.2%
7.3% 7.0%
0.0% 0.4%
Daily Weekly Monthly Few times Once a

a year year
Figure 24 : Frequency of sharing content online

Speed of sharing online content
When asked how quickly Internet users share online content, a vast majority of Internet
users (90.2%) claimed to only share content online after reading it through, indicating an
awareness of responsible sharing amongst the general public. This number increased by
11.3% in 2022 from 78.9% in 2020.
Figure 25 : Speed of sharing content online

Awareness of fake news
The percentage of people who failed to understand what constitutes fake news decreased
slightly to 3.2% in 2022 from 4.9% in 2020. On the bright side, the percentage of Internet
users who reported being able to understand and identify fake news increased from 91.3%
in 2020 to 94.3% in 2022. This implies that Internet users are becoming increasingly more
wary of the impact of fake news on their lives and critical when consuming news from
various online platforms.
In addition, 95.4% reported that fake news is still a problem in Malaysia, increasing 3.1%
from the previous survey. The proportion of respondents who believed that fake news was
not a problem and were uncertain about it decreased by 2.7% and 1.2%, respectively.
Do you understand what is Is fake news problem?

fake news?
Figure 26 : Fake news

SEBENARNYA.MY portal
2020 2022
77.4%
65.8%
28.0%
20.3%
6.1%
2.3%
Aware Not aware Don't know/Not sure
Figure 27 : Awareness of SEBENARNYA.MY portal
MCMC launched SEBENARNYA.MY, a portal aimed to impede the proliferation of fake

news. From a general viewpoint, based on the results obtained from IUS 2022, one could
deduce that the level of awareness of the local portal is still low amongst the public.
A deeper analysis revealed a spike of 7.7% (from 20.3% to 28.0%) amongst Internet users
who are aware of the existence of this portal. At the same time, the number of Internet users
stating ‘no’ also decreased from 77.4% to 65.8%.
Online security and privacy
The outbreak of COVID-19 has spiralled into an enormous challenge for businesses to
protect their company’s data as companies accelerate their digital transformation and the
world becomes more digitally connected – and vulnerable – than ever. The coronavirus
pandemic has forced employees to adapt to a new operational model in which ‘working
from home’ has become the new normal.
Such rapid acceleration of digitalization becomes a more lucrative target for cybercriminals
– hence cybersecurity is now a major concern. The increase in working from home is seen
as the main contributor to data security being compromised and heightened technology
risks since individuals working at home do not experience the same level of inherent
cybersecurity protection and deterrent measures as when they work from the o ice. For
instance, remote work was identified as a factor for data breaches in 17.5% of companies
as reported by IBM’s Data Breach Report 20217.
Malaysia has had an established reputation in protecting data security and privacy.
According to ITU’s Global Security Index 2020, Malaysia was ranked fifth globally and
second in the Asia-Pacific region in terms of the country with the highest level of
commitment to cybersecurity8.
IUS 2022 aimed to dive deeper into the issue of online security and privacy in tandem with
the societal change in attitude towards data protection and privacy.
7
BM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2021
h ps://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/OJDVQGRY#:~:text=The%20percentage%20of%20companies%20where,50%25%20or%20less%20wo
rking%20remotely.
8
ITU Global Security Index 2020. h ps://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-d/opb/str/D-STR-GCI.01-2021-PDF-E.pdf
35.8% -19.3%
felt secure when using the Internet
(compared to 55.1% in 2020)
45.4% +20.0%
felt neutral when using the Internet

(compared to 25.4% in 2020)
18.8% - 0.6%
did not feel secure when using the
Internet (compared to 19.4% in 2020)
Security perception
Figure 28 : Security perception when using the Internet
In IUS 2022, 35.8% of Internet users reported feeling secure being online, a 19.3%
decrease from 2020 whereas 18.8% claimed did not feel secure while using the Internet,
a 0.6% decrease compared to 2020. Concurrently, 45.4% respondents reported feeling
neutral in their security perception of the Internet usage.
The decline in Internet users feeling unsafe when using the Internet could be largely
attributed to users working and studying remotely, in line with IBM’s Data Breach Report
2021.
Confidentiality of personal data
Figure 29 : Data kept confidential
Similar to 2020, Internet users felt government bodies generally protect the confidentiality
of their personal information better than service providers and non-government
organisations did. Although Internet users ranked the government as the most trustworthy
in keeping their data confidential, it is worth highlighting that the percentage points were
noticeably declining, from slightly more than half (50.4%) in 2020 to 37.0% in 2022.
Cybercrime experienced
IUS 2022 also gauged the sentiment among Internet users on cybercrimes experienced by
Internet users. These include virus or malicious code, spam, fraud, cyberbully, hacking and
intrusion and abuse of personal information.
Have you ever experienced any cybercrimes while using the Internet?
Figure 30 : Experienced any cybercrime while using the Internet

Figure 31 : Cybercrime experienced

2020 2022
53.0% 52.8%
27.6%
19.4%
15.0%
12.7%
9.5%
7.6%
Last 6 Last 12 Last 2 More than

months months years 3 years ago
Figure 32 : Last time experienced cybercrime

Scam and fraud activities saw a steep increase from 47.4% in 2020 to 68.5% in 2022.
Among Internet users who had previously experienced cybercrime, 72.2% of the
occurrences were reported taking place in the past year.
Department of Statistics Malaysia's (DOSM) latest November 2021 version of their Crime
Statistics Publication reported that, while their overall crime index decreased by 21.4% over
the past year, the number of new media content complaint cases in 2020 increased by
99.5%9. Hence, greater caution online should still be exercised accordingly.
IUS 2022 indicates that more men experienced cybercrime as compared to women. A
significant di erence between men and women was observed in two types of cybercrime
i.e viruses or malicious code (63.3% vs 35.7%) and hacking and intrusion (62.3% vs 37.4%).
9
Crime Sta s cs Publica on 2021, DOSM
h ps://www.dosm.gov.my/v1/index.php?r=column/cthemeByCat&cat=455&bul_id=eHE0eGZWSmNROG1BbHR2TzFvZzZxQT09&menu_id=
U3VPMldoYUxzVzFaYmNkWXZteGduZz09#
Have you ever experienced the following cybercrimes while using the Internet?
Figure 33 : Cybercrimes experienced by gender

Have you ever experienced the following cybercrimes while using the Internet?
Figure 34 : Cybercrimes experienced by age group

Experienced of cyberbullying
From those who were allegedly cyberbullied, 49.9% of the actions reportedly revolved
around trickery and 49.9% were related to masquerading.
Figure 35 : Type of cyberbullying experienced
Table 2 : List of definition for type of cyberbullying10

Type/Form Definition
Trickery occurs when the cyberbully tricks an individual into providing
embarrassing, private, or sensitive information and posts or sends the
information for others to view
Masquerading where the cyberbully pretends to be someone else and sends or posts
threatening or harmful information about one person to other people.
Harassment involves repeatedly sending o ensive messages
Cyberstalking moves harassment online, with the o ender sending threatening
messages to his or her victim
Fraping where a person accesses the victim’s social media account and
impersonates them in an attempt to be funny or to ruin their reputation.
Trolling is insulting an individual online to provoke them enough to get a response.
Dissing share or post cruel information online to ruin one’s reputation or

friendships with others.
Exclusion deliberately leaving individuals out of an online group, thereby
automatically stigmatizing the excluded individuals.
10
Source: Yehuda Peled, Cyberbullying and its influence on academic, social, and emo onal development of undergraduate students,
Heliyon, Page 4, Volume 5, Issue 3, 2019, e01393, ISSN 2405-8440, h ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01393
What types of cyberbullying have you experienced?
Figure 36 : Type of cyberbullying experienced, by gender

What types of cyberbullying have you experienced?
Figure 37 : Type of cyberbullying experienced, by age

Action taken following cybercrime experienced
Of those who experienced cybercrimes, 22.9% decided to discuss the incident and seek
advice from someone they know (5.2% increase from 2020) and only 18.9% actually
reported the crime, with a 4.0% increase from 2020. On the other hand, cybercrime victims
who did not take action against the malicious activities reported to drop from 43.9% to
33.9%.
Figure 38 : Action taken following cybercrime experienced

Online Privacy
An overwhelming majority of Internet users take online privacy seriously. 94.8% of

Internet users reported online privacy as either important or extremely important.
Figure 39 : Importance of online privacy
Sharing of personal information online
Out of all the Internet users, only 26.6% of Internet users shared their personal
information online, a 4.0% decrease from 2020. The most common types of personal
sharing online were real name (67.5%), phone number (61.5%) and email address
(40.4%).
Figure 40 : Sharing of personal information online

Online behaviour among children and parental control
According to UNICEF’s Growing Up In a Connected World 2019 report, at the global

level, one child in three is an Internet users, and that one in three Internet users is a child
under 18 years of age11. Hence, there is an increasing need to ensure that parents
monitor their child’s behaviour online. This leads us to ask what the Malaysian situation
is regarding child Internet users.
In Malaysia, there has been a drastic increase in Internet usage among child users over
the years. In IUS 2020, it was established that the number of children who use the
Internet grew by 155% between 2016 to 202012. In the survey, parents were asked if their
children used the Internet or not. For this survey, children are defined of those who are
seventeen years old and below.
In this year’s edition of the IUS, Internet usage rates among child users seems to have
marginally declined at 3.3%, comparing with IUS 2020.
The following analysis will seek to discuss popular trends regarding parental permission,
children, and their Internet usage.
Figure 41 : Usage of Internet among children
11
Growing Up In A Connected World: Summary Report, UNICEF Office of Research – Innocen , 2019
12
Parents were asked whether their children used the Internet or not. The comparison was made between the years 2016 and 2020 - IUS
2020, Page 95, Figure 32: Usage of Internet among children
Device own
Figure 42 : Children have his/her own device to access Internet
The results in IUS 2022 denote that the percentage of children owning devices for the
purpose of accessing the Internet increased by 20.1% (from 56.3% in IUS 2020 to 76.4%
in IUS 2022).
Children online activities
Figure 43 : Children online activities
When asked what are activities their children do when using the Internet, the 3 most
prominent answers were attending class from home (79.6%), streaming/downloading
online videos (69.7%) and online gaming (50.9%).
The most preferred option for online studying seems to confirm the adage that there has
been increased reliance on Internet usage for classes due to lockdown.
Social media owns by children
Figure 44 : Social media account owns by children
Finally, when asked what online social media platforms their children have an account
on, almost 42.0% of parents claimed that their children do not own any social media
account. Meanwhile, 27.1% of them claimed their children own Facebook account
followed by YouTube (22.4%) and Instagram (20.9%).
Awareness and use of parental control
With increase in the number of children using the Internet, awareness of parental control
however shows a slight increased, from 55.6% in 2020 to 57.3% in 2022.
Figure 45 : Awareness of parental control services

Parental Control Changes Before/ During COVID-19
When asked what their experience with parental control features or software was like,
there seems to be substantial improvement for all 3 options, namely: User friendliness
saw an increase of 16.8% between 2020 to 2022, while the effectiveness of parental
control in helping parents monitor their child saw an improvement of 17.3%. Finally,
affordability saw 12.8% improvement since IUS 2020.
The increase in affordability begs the question as to why Internet users regarded parental
control services to be cheaper. One potential reason for this increase is that parents
tend to associate these services with free parental control features available on Google,
Apple, Astro and other platforms. For example, Astro subscribers pay for the channel
packages but parental control settings are a complimentary service - free and included
in the package. Likewise, when parents buy a smartphone with Google or Apple parental
control settings, they may assume that the service is affordable.
Figure 46 : Experience when using parental control service

Reason for not using parental control
In IUS 2022, the 3 most prominent reasons for not using parental controls were largely
because of; parental trust in their child (36.1%), that they’ve never heard of parental
controls (26.0%), and that parents would rather set their own rules and limits pertaining
their child’s Internet usage (20.0%).
Figure 47 : Reasons for not using parental control
What is interesting to note is that for the latter 2 reasons, there seems to have been a
substantial decrease in preference since 2020.
For example, for those that have never heard of parental controls, the percentage has
significantly and consistently dropped from 50.7% in 2020 to 26.0% in 2022. This drop
denotes increased awareness of parents regarding parental controls.
Secondly, for parents that would rather set their own rules and limits pertaining to their
child’s Internet usage, the percentage has also significantly dropped from 53.8% in 2020 to
20.0% in 2022. This consistent drop denotes that parents are either more amenable to rely
on alternatives to ensure their online safety (e.g., parental controls) or that they trust their
child to self-regulate their online behaviour. This seems to be the case due to it being the
most preferred action in IUS 2022, which was 36.1%.
Action taken by parents to ensure child online safety
When given a series of online safety actions that parents identified with, IUS 2022 results
raise a similar cause for concern in IUS 2020. This being that, on average, fewer parents
could name specific steps they took to ensure their child’s online safety year on year.
Besides that, the ranking among specific actions taken by parents seems consistent with
the previous IUS. The top 4 actions identified remained the same, as well as the percentage
rankings for those actions. We can see that the top 3 most popular actions taken was to set
rules and limit Internet usage (68.0%), having discussions with their child regarding online
safety (50.8%) and closely monitoring their child when they are online (48.0%).
Figure 48 : Actions taken by parents to ensure child online safety

Level of control during COVID-19 lockdown
From the previous section, for parents that opted to set rules and limit Internet usage for
their child, they were given a follow up question regarding their level of control over their
child’s Internet use both before and during COVID-19 lockdown.
There was no substantial di erence in the percentage of control levels before or during
COVID-19 lockdown, across all control levels (very strict, strict, moderate, neutral, not
strict at all).
In general, parents were likely to be either strict, moderate or neutral in controlling their
children accessing the Internet .
Figure 49 : Level of control for children while accessing the Internet

28.4% more
people
spent 5 hours and more working
from home during the pandemic
than before the pandemic
24.1% more
people
spent 5 hours and more studying
from home during the pandemic
than before the pandemic
COVID-19 impact on Internet usage
In many ways, the lockdown during COVID-19 exacerbated society’s reliance on the
Internet. Several sources of research support this. For example, as people embraced social
distancing, they turned to online shopping more than ever before with 67% of consumers
reporting they shop di erently now due to COVID-19 (LaBerge)13.19 Pertaining social media
use, Blossom et al. revealed a greater increase in social media use and streaming services.
The results showed that compulsive Internet use and increased social media use was
strongly associated with worries of COVID-19 and symptoms of depression14.
In this section, we explore COVID-19’s impact on how Internet users have used the Internet
before and during the pandemic, as well as their perception on Internet related issues.
We note that unlike previous versions of the IUS, this is the first that attempts to explore
COVID-19 related impacts.
Has the Internet be important for you during the coronavirus outbreak?
Figure 50 : Level of important of Internet during COVID-19
When asked on the importance of the respondent’s Internet usage during the coronavirus
outbreak, 62.5% of respondents ranked the Internet’s importance as “Important.” This was
followed by 29.9% of respondents choosing the “Very Important” option.
13
Source: h ps://nielseniq.com/global/en/insights/commentary/2021/consumer-behavior-in-the-covid-recovery/
14
The impact of COVID-19 lockdown on Internet use and escapism in adolescents - Blossom et. al, September 2020, Revista de Psicología
Clínica con Niños y Adolescentes, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp 59-65.
Engagement with Internet activities before and during COVID-19
Figure 51: Percentage Internet users who engage with activities before and
during COVID-19
When asked whether respondents engaged with several Internet activities before or during
the the COVID-19 pandemic, there were generally 2 activities that had large percentage
changes. The activities being “Used the Internet to work from home” and “Used the Internet
to study from home (attending class).”
There was an increase of 18.0% in users who use the Internet to work from home during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Besides that, there was an increase of 16.5% in respondents who
used the Internet to study from home.
The other activities had relatively similar participation levels before and during the COVID-
19 pandemic.
Hours spent on activities before/during COVID-19
From the previous section, respondents were asked a follow up question if they responded
yes to participating in the above Internet activities. The follow up questions sought to
uncover the number of hours spent on Internet activities before and during the COVID-19
pandemic.
Figure 52: Comparison of Internet users (%) who spent 5 hours and more on Internet
activities before and during COVID-19
When asked about their work from home tendencies, 45.8% of respondents worked 5 hours
and more from home before the pandemic. This number spiked to 74.4% of respondents
during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Meanwhile, when asked about respondent’s study from home tendencies, 29.0%
respondents claimed studied 5 hours and more before the pandemic. This number spiked
to 53.1% during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Pertaining to e-commerce related activities, the trend of Internet users estimated time
spent online also changed. For example, IUS 2022 noted an increase of 1.9% Internet users
spent 5 hours and more buying groceries, 2.0% buying food, 1.2% buying goods and 6.4%
for selling goods. Thus, this indicates that people were likely spending more time doing e-
Commerce activities during COVID-19 in comparison to before.
Challenges with Internet usage during COVID-19
During COVID-19, the most likely Internet problem faced by respondents had to do with
Internet speed (55.9%), followed by coverage, reliability (connection) and quality at 52.3%,
48.3%, and 46.0% respectively.
Figure 53: Problem faced when using Internet during COVID-19 pandemic
Do you face the following problems when using Internet during COVID-19 pandemic? (YES)
Figure 54: Problem faced when using Internet during COVID-19 pandemic, by gender
Figure 55: Problem faced when using Internet during COVID-19 pandemic, by age group
Figure 56: Problem faced when using Internet during COVID-19 pandemic, by strata
When broken down into strata, the most common Internet problem experienced by rural
area inhabitants was speed (65.0%) followed closely by coverage (61.6%). Managing speed
and coverage issues within rural area is crucial to ensure universal and meaningful
connectivity which could harness the potential benefit of the Internet in this area. Further,
reliable Internet connectivity will foster economic growth in rural area by facilitating e-
commerce, online businesses and access to global market.
MCMC through JENDELA project, takes seriously in addressing and improving issues
relating to Internet service quality and quality of experiences within rural areas. MCMC
through strategic partnership with service providers are investing in broadband
infrastructure and implementing supportive policies to maximize the positive impact of the
Internet on rural communities.
Impact of Internet usage on emotion
When asked how the Internet impacted their emotion during COVID-19, respondents
generally responded with 4 reactions. 50.2% reported feeling neutral about the Internet
usage, 19.2% felt happy, 8.2% expressed joy and 7.8% felt tired when using the Internet.
Figure 57: Emotional impact of Internet usage during COVID-19 pandemic

What is the biggest emo onal impact of Internet usage to you during pandemic
COVID-19?
Figure 58: Emotional impact of Internet usage during COVID-19 pandemic, by gender
What is the biggest emo onal impact of Internet usage to you during pandemic
COVID-19?
Figure 59: Emotional impact of Internet usage during COVID-19 pandemic, by age
group
When broken into age categories, IUS 2022 witnessed that positive emotions were most
prevalent amongst Internet users less than 20 years old, while the rest of the age groups
opted for neutral emotions.
Predictive Analysis
IUS 2022 leverages the power of predictive analysis using machine learning to better
understand the behaviour of Internet users.
We developed logistic regression15 models to quantify the influence of di erent user traits
or behaviours on an outcome of interest, such as whether an Internet user will share
content online.
The models are the following:
1. Predict likelihood of sharing content online

2. Predict likelihood of feeling secure when using the Internet
3. Predict likelihood of having an experience in cyberbullying
Predict whether someone will share content online
Model Evaluation
An accurate model is important for us to gain insights about user behaviour. In order to
better assess the performance of our model, we need to evaluate our model on a dataset
that it has not seen before. Hence, we split our dataset at random into 80% and 20%. The
80% is used to train our model while the other 20% is used to test our model. The training
process is done to determine the most significant variables that produce the best model
accuracy. The selected model is then fitted and evaluated using the overall data sets
available (prior to splitting). The results are shown in the classification table below.
15
Logis c regression is a sta s cal technique used when the outcome is a dichotomy (only two possible outcomes, e.g. 1 or 0, Yes or No).
Actual
Didn’t share content Shared content

online online
Didn’t share content online 1,036 477

Prediction
Shared content online 198 289
The metrics associated with the classification table are:

Accuracy16 True positive rate17 True negative rate18
66% 38% 84%
With an accuracy of 66%, the model performs better than random chance (50%).
Variables
A total of 5 variables were fitted in this model. A detailed description of the variables can
be found in the Appendix in the Variable Description table. The variables used in this
model are those that most significantly affect the likelihood of someone sharing content
online. The most critical variables are whether someone has experienced cybercrime,
hotspot usage, whether they shop online, the duration of their daily Internet use and their
employment status.
1 Experienced with cybercrime
2 Hotspot
3 Online shopping
4 Duration of daily use of Internet
5 Employment
Top 5 Findings
Those who have experienced a cybercrime are 110% more likely share content online compared to those
110% who have not.
123% Those who use hotspots are 123% more likely to refuse to share content online than those who don’t.
113% Those who shop online are 113% more likely share content online compared to those who don’t.
Those who spend more than 4 hours online daily are on average, 55% more likely to share content online
55%
compared to those spending less than 4 hours daily online.
29% Those who are self-employed are 29% more share content online compared to those who are employed.
16
The model correctly predicts 66% of those who will and will not share content online.
17
The model correctly predicts 38% of those who will not share content online.
18
The model correctly predicts 84% of those who will share content online.
Example
Using this model, we can predict the chances of a person with the following profile to
share content online.
Variable Characteristics
Experienced with cybercrime Yes
Hotspot Yes
Duration of daily use of the Internet More than 4 hours
Employment Employed
Online shopping Yes
For this case, the probability of this person sharing content online is 42%.
Predict whether someone feels secure when using the Internet
Model Evaluation
For this model, we divided the dataset at random into a 80:20 split from a total of 2947
records of data (2,358 : 589), where 80% of the dataset was used to train the model
while the other 20% was used to evaluate it. The results can be shown in the following
classification table.
Actual
Feel insecure Feel secure
Feel insecure 529 283

Prediction
Feel secure 504 1,631

73% 85% 51%
With an accuracy of 73%, the model performs better than random chance (50%).
Variables
A total of 6 variables were used in our model. A detailed description of the variables can be
found in the Appendix. The figure below shows the top five most significant variables in
predicting the probability of feeling secure when using the Internet. The most critical
variable is whether someone thinks their data is kept confidential by organizations (i.e.
government agencies, service providers, banks, etc ), their experience with cybercrime,
ethnicity, whether they share content online, and gender.
1 Data security by external organisations
2 Experienced with cybercrime
3 Gender
4 Ethnicity
5 Sharing content online
19
The model correctly predicts 73% of those who feel and don’t feel secure when using the Internet
20
The model correctly predicts 85% of those who feel secure when using the Internet
21
The model correctly predicts 51% of those who don’t feel secure when using the Internet
Top 5 Findings
People who think their personal data is kept confidential by organizations are 0.15 times less
15%
likely to feel insecure online in comparison to those who don't.
Those that have experienced a cybercrime are approximately 2.23 times more likely to feel
123%
insecure online compared to those who have not experienced a cybercrime.
57% Males are 0.57 less likely to feel insecure online in comparison to females.
The Chinese are approximately 1.81 times more likely to feel insecure online in comparison to
81%
Malays.
Those that have shared content online are approximately 1.27 times more likely to feel
27%
insecure online in comparison to those that have not shared anything online.
Example
Using this model, we can predict the chance of a person with the following profile to feel
secure when using the Internet.
Gender Male
Ethnicity Chinese
Employment Employed
Experienced cybercrime Yes
Think that personal data is kept confidential by organizations No
For this profile, the probability of the person feeling secure when using the Internet is only
22%. In other words, he has a 78% probability of not feeling secure when being online.
Predict whether someone has experienced cyberbullying
Model Evaluation
This model was built using a dataset with a sample size of 4,558. The dataset was
divided into a 70:30 ratio split where 70% of it (n = 3,191) was used to train the model,
and the remaining 30% (n = 1,367) was used to evaluate the model. The final model is
then fitted into the overall dataset yielding the results in the classification table below.
Actual
0 (will not share content 1 (will share content

online) online)
Never experienced cyberbully 2,930 113

Prediction
Experienced cyberbully 1,207 308
75% 73% 71%
With an accuracy of 75%, the model performs extremely better than random chance
(50%).
Variables
A total of 22 variables were fitted in this model. A detailed description of the variables can be
found in the Appendix in the Variable Description table. The variables used in this model are
those that most significantly affect the likelihood of someone experiencing cyberbully. The most
critical variables are whether someone has a YouTube account, whether they have a LinkedIn
account, whether they share content online, whether they sell goods and services online, and
the type of broadband they use.
1 YouTube
2 Feeling secure online
3 Type of broadband used
4 Ethnicity
5 Sell goods and services online
22
The model correctly predicts 75% of those who have and have not experienced cyberbullying.
23
The model correctly predicts 73% of those who have experienced cyberbullying.
24
The model correctly predicts 71% of those who have not experienced cyberbullying.
Top 5 Findings
Those who have a Youtube account are approximately 0.15 times less likely to have never experienced
15%
cyberbullying compared to those who don’t have a YouTube account.
Those who have a LinkedIn account are approximately 3.67 times more likely to have never experienced
267%
cyberbullying compared to those who don’t have a LinkedIn account.
Those who share content online are 0.55 times less likely to have never experienced cyberbullying
55%
compared to those who don’t share.
Those who sell goods and services online are 2.46 times more likely to have never experienced
146%
cyberbullying compared to those who don’t.
Those who don’t use any broadband are 2.13 times more likely to have never experienced cyberbullying
113%
compared to those who use.
Example
We can predict the chance of a person with the following profile to have experienced
cyberbullying.
Years of experience with Internet use More than 10 years
Duration of daily use of Internet Less than 4 hours
Type of broadband used Fixed
Have Facebook account Yes
Have Twitter account No
Have LinkedIn account No
Have Instagram account No
Have Youtube account Yes
Have WhatsApp account Yes
Have Telegram account No
Have WeChat account No
Share content online Yes
Sell goods and services online No
Gender Female
Ethnicity Malay
Region North
Using the model, this individual is 55% likely to have experienced cyberbullying.
Conclusion
The percentage of Internet users in 2022 grew by 4.0% as compared with 2020. This
discovery is anticipated given that the Internet has been a lifeline to many since the COVID-
19 outbreak began. This occurrence which coincides with a series of multiple national
lockdowns and imposition of strict movement procedures has brought certain issues to
light, deserving public attention. For instance, the profoundly altered way of working and
studying played a role in identifying the urban-rural gap in employment and education.
The closure of schools, businesses and workplaces for an extended length of time
ultimately o ers a snapshot of the struggles that some people might be facing, albeit
unevenly. School shutdowns have shifted teaching activities from traditional classroom
learning to distance home-based online learning (e-learning). Internet unavailability,
inadequate equipment and unconducive environments, especially in rural areas render the
adoption of e-learning for students ine ective and entail its own problems for parents and
teachers.
In order to increase access to the Internet, initiatives to make it more accessible is ongoing
through JENDELA, a project to provide wider coverage and better quality of broadband
experience.
The widespread use of the Internet has also contributed to the rapid proliferation of fake
news and misinformation, which can cause public confusion. Despite that, Internet users
are indeed aware of the concept of fake news and understand its implications.
Pre-emptive measures to curb fake news are imperative in today’s digital age to safeguard
the integrity of information and protect the public from misinformation. Usage and
awareness of SEBENARNYA.MY as a fact-checking and verification platform should be
promoted continuously.
Furthermore, IUS 2022 unveiled that the rate of cybercrimes experienced by Internet users
in 2022 increased specifically in fraud/scam and hacking activities. The predictive analysis
of this report can provide valuable insights to policymakers with regards to specific areas
and demography that need to be given extra attention to better protect Internet users who
are more defenceless and inclined to be the target of cybercrimes. This includes children
who are more vulnerable to becoming victims, especially those who are not supervised by
parents or whose parents do not exercise adequate control over them.
Appendices
Caution is required in the use of the estimates tabulated below.
While we have taken every care to minimise non-sampling errors, which cannot be
quantified, the estimates presented are also subject to sampling error, which is a measure
of the chance variation that occurs because a sample, and not the entire population, is
canvassed. The sampling error of an estimate is usually expressed as a percentage of that
estimate to give the relative sampling error (RSE) of that estimate. The estimates are
weighted and the RSE takes into account the e ect of weighting.
In general, estimates that are small are subject to high RSEs. As a guide, only estimates with
RSEs of 25% or less are considered reliable for general use. Estimates with RSEs greater
than 25% but less than or equal to 50% are denoted with one asterisk (*) in these tables
and should be used with caution; while estimates with RSEs greater than 50% are denoted
by two asterisks (**) and are considered too unreliable for general use.
For comparison, past data are appended together where available.
Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Percentage of Internet users

2016 (%) RSE 2018 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Users 76.9 1.0 87.4 0.5 88.7 0.7 92.7 0.6
Non-users 23.1 3.3 12.6 3.7 11.3 5.7 7.3 7.3
Years of experience with Internet use

2018 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Less than 1 year 3.7 7.8 2.5 20.6 1.6 16.2
1 to less than 3 years 11.7 4.2 12.2 5.5 7.7 7.1
7 to less than 10 years - - 19.1 4.2 15.9 4.7
More than 15 years 11.9 4.1 10.2 6.1 26.1 3.4
Don't know/ No answer - - 1.2 18.5 2.6 12.6

2018 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Less than 1 hour 9.6 4.7 1.3 17.0 3.9 10.2
1 to 4 hours 39.2 1.9 24.9 3.4 26.6 3.4
5 to 8 hours 23.9 2.7 28.6 3.1 25.0 3.5
9 to 12 hours 13.4 3.9 21.5 3.8 19.7 4.1
13 to 18 hours 5.7 6.2 9.0 6.3 7.1 7.4
More than 18 hours 8.1 5.1 11.5 5.5 11.7 5.6
Don't know/Refused/No answer - - 3.1 11.0 6.0 8.1
Place to access Internet

2016 (%) RSE 2018 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Home 85.6 0.8 88.6 0.5 70.4 1.3 82.3 0.9
On-the-go 84.0 0.9 68.1 1.0 64.4 1.5 53.4 1.9
Workplace 58.7 1.7 56.4 1.3 30.1 3.0 38.8 2.6
Another person's home 54.8 1.9 38.7 1.9 1.3 17.0 4.6 9.3
Free Wi-Fi anywhere 55.9 1.8 36.3 2.0 6.0 7.9 4.4 9.5
Commercial Internet
30.0 3.1 26.0 2.6 2.0 14.0 4.7 9.2
access facility
Community Internet
19.6 4.1 18.2 3.2 4.2 9.5 4.4 9.5
access facility
Place of education 13.9 5.1 12.0 4.1 8.2 6.6 6.6 7.7
Multiple responses
Internet access from home

2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Fixed broadband 21.4 4.5 36.6 1.9
Mobile broadband 56.2 2.1 46.8 1.9
Fixed broadband and mobile broadband 21.8 4.5 16.6 19.2
Usage of personal hotspot with Wi-Fi/ Bluetooth/ USB

2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Yes 62.1 1.6 71.1 1.3
No 37.9 2.6 28.9 3.2
Device to access Internet

2016 (%) RSE 2018 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Smartphone 89.4 0.7 93.1 0.4 98.7 0.2 94.4 0.5
Netbook/Notebook/Laptop 36.3 2.7 44.2 1.7 37.9 2.5 40.4 2.5
PC/Desktop 29.3 3.2 28.1 2.4 16.2 4.5 20.6 4.0
Tablet 18.0 4.4 20.4 3.0 6.4 7.6 14.4 5.0
Smart TV 6.7 7.6 12.3 4.1 5.9 7.9 21.7 3.9
Feature phone 9.4 6.3 8.6 5.0 1.3 17.2 3.7 10.3
TV streaming box 5.6 8.4 7.6 5.3 2.9 11.5 3.5 10.6
Game console 2.5 12.6 4.7 6.8 0.8 22.1 4.1 9.9
Smartwatch - - 2.4 9.8 0.6 24.8 5.9 8.1
Multiple responses
Online activities
2016 (%) RSE 2018 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Communicate by text 96.3 0.4 96.5 0.3 98.1 0.3 98.3 0.3
Visit social networking
89.3 0.7 85.6 0.6 93.3 0.5 94.1 0.5
platform
Watch or download
70.0 1.3 77.6 0.8 87.3 0.8 89.6 0.7
video/online TV
Communicate by
32.0 3.0 60.6 1.2 81.1 1.0 94.1 0.5
voice/video
To get information 86.9 0.8 85.5 0.6 74.3 1.2 92.4 0.6
Read online publication - - 56.3 1.3 68.2 2.4 44.3 2.3
Listen or download
- - 46.8 1.6 65.4 1.4 37.2 2.7
music/online radio
Online games 41.6 2.4 35.2 2.1 42.8 2.3 35.7 2.7
Maintain blogs/homepages 17.0 4.5 9.8 4.6 32.3 2.9 - -
Multiple responses
Social networking account ownership

2016 (%) RSE 2018 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Facebook 97.3 0.4 97.3 0.3 91.7 0.6 87.5 0.7
YouTube 45.3 2.4 48.3 1.7 80.6 1.0 76.3 1.3
Instagram 56.1 1.9 57.0 1.4 63.1 1.5 63.9 1.6
Twitter 26.6 3.6 23.8 2.9 37.1 2.6 40.9 2.7
LinkedIn 9.1 6.8 13.3 4.2 10.8 5.7 21.6 4.3
Tik Tok - - - - - - 49.7 2.1
Google+ 28.3 3.4 31.1 2.4 24.1 3.5 - -
Others 0.9 22.8 0.7 19.9 0.2* 40.1 6.1 8.0
Multiple responses
Communication apps account ownership

2018 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
WhatsApp 98.1 0.2 98.7 0.2 97.7 0.3
Facebook Messenger 55.6 1.4 53.9 1.8 53.5 1.9
Telegram 25.0 2.7 40.0 2.4 56.4 1.8
WeChat 36.8 2.0 27.7 3.2 21.3 3.9
Skype 14.2 3.8 14.5 4.8 8.2 6.8
Line 10.2 4.6 8.2 6.6 8.6 6.7
KakaoTalk 2.1 10.5 6.3 7.6 5.8 8.2
Google Meet - - - - 0.2* 42.5
Zoom - - - - 21.6 3.9
Others 1.1 14.5 0.1** 55.9 0.2* 46.9
Multiple responses
Time spent on listening or downloading music/online radio

2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Daily 34.9 2.7 37.2 2.7
Weekly 24.4 3.5 18.6 4.3
Monthly 7.5 7.0 8.2 6.8
Few times a year 4.2 9.5 3.6 10.6
Once a year 0.2* 40.8 0.6* 25.4
None 27.0 3.3 30.6 3.1
Don't know/Not sure 1.8 14.6 1.1 19.4
Time spent on watching or downloading video/online TV

2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Daily 45.4 2.2 48.8 2.1
Weekly 25.6 3.4 23.1 3.7
Monthly 4.7 9.0 7.3 7.3
Few times a year 1.1 19.1 3.2 11.2
Once a year 0.2* 50.0 0.5* 30.3
None 21.4 3.8 15.9 4.7
Time spent on reading online publication

2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Daily 42.0 2.3 44.3 2.3
Weekly 24.3 3.5 22.2 3.8
Monthly 5.2 8.5 6.9 7.5
Few times a year 1.4 16.5 2.4 13
Once a year 0.7 24.2 0.7 24.9
None 24.1 3.5 22.1 3.8
Time spent on listening to traditional radio (FM radio)

2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Daily 27.1 3.3 36.3 2.7
Weekly 19.8 4.0 19.0 4.2
Monthly 8.8 6.4 6.7 7.6
Few times a year 3.3 10.7 4 10
Once a year 1.0 19.9 1.0 20.1
None 38.0 2.5 31.6 3.0
Don't know/Not sure 2.0 14.0 1.4 17
Time spent on watching traditional TV

2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Daily 48.1 2.1 43.3 2.3
Weekly 21.3 3.8 21.9 3.9
Monthly 6.4 7.6 7.4 7.2
Few times a year 1.7 15.1 3.4 10.9
Once a year 0.8 22.1 0.9 21.7
None 19.8 4.0 21.6 3.9
Time spent on reading printed book/magazine/newspaper

2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Daily 27.0 3.3 28.8 3.2
Weekly 16.7 4.4 17.8 4.4
Monthly 12.2 5.3 9.0 6.5
Few times a year 2.2 13.1 4.4 9.5
Once a year 1.2 18.1 1.2 18.4
None 38.3 2.5 37.1 2.7
Other online activities

2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Online shopping/booking 45.0 3.6 66.6 1.4
Online banking 29.7 5.1 66.3 1.5
Work related 41.3 3.9 47.9 2.1
Government services 63.8 2.5 41.2 2.4
Cloud storage 64.2 2.5 29.3 3.2
Study 25.7 5.6 20.7 4.0
Online job application 12.0 8.9 20.2 4.1
Selling goods/services 37.1 4.3 13.8 5.1
Others 1.1* 31.2 0** 99.5
None of the above - - 21.4 3.9
Multiple responses
Online content sharing among Internet users

2018 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Have shared content online 61.8 1.2 42.9 2.3 33.0 2.9
Did not share content online 38.2 1.9 53.3 1.9 58.3 1.7
Type of online content shared

2018 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Educational content 71.3 1.2 36.4 4.0 29.5 5.5
Entertainment and humorous content 69.6 1.3 56.1 2.7 44.7 4.0
News 63.9 1.5 66.9 2.1 63.0 2.7
Public service announcement 62.6 1.5 60.9 2.4 50.3 4.5
Aid e ort 55.9 1.7 37.7 3.9 38.5 5.4
Latest promotion and discount 43.0 2.2 23.3 5.5 26.8 6.6
Political related issue 32.1 2.8 17.2 6.6 31.1 2.3
Others - - 3.5 15.9 2.4 22.7
News 63.9 1.5 66.9 2.1 63.0 2.7
Multiple responses
Online content sharing platform

2018 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Social media 73.8 1.2 86.5 1.2 67.2 2.5
Group messaging (group chat) 70.6 1.2 58.5 2.5 52.8 3.4
Private messaging 46.6 2.1 36.1 4.0 29.4 5.5
Email 15.8 4.5 5.1 13.1 1.7* 27.0
Blog/personal website 6.3 7.5 2.1 20.8 1.6* 27.7
Forum 3.4 10.4 1.0* 30.7 1.4* 30.0
Others 0.3* 37.7 - - 0.4** 53.9
Multiple responses
Purpose of online content sharing platform

2018 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Content is beneficial 87.2 0.7 71.8 1.9 70.8 2.3
Raise awareness about an issue 82.3 0.9 53.6 2.8 38.6 4.5
Entertain/for fun 64.1 1.4 36.6 4.0 22.8 6.5
Share interests and hobbies 57.7 1.7 18.8 6.3 15.7 8.2
Generate discussion 55.8 1.7 16.9 6.7 17.6 7.7
Get likes and followers 20.7 3.8 6.2 11.8 2.8 21
Promote product and service 20.2 3.8 4.4 14.2 6.1 13.9
Others 0.4* 31.6 0.2** 64.2 0.1** 141.4
Multiple responses
Actions taken before sharing content online

2018 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Understand the content 90.8 0.6 72.4 1.9 76.6 2.0
Ensure the content is not obscene, menacing or
85.8 0.8 54.9 2.7 56.9 3.1
o ensive
Ensure the validity of the content 79.4 1.0 63.0 2.3 78.1 1.9
Verify whether the content is from reliable source
77.0 1.1 62.9 2.3 79.2 1.8
or not
None of the above 4.4 9.0 7.0 11.0 5.9 14.2
Multiple responses
Frequency of sharing content online

2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Daily 19.2 6.2 15.2 8.4
Weekly 49.1 3.1 43.1 4.1
Monthly 18.9 6.3 28.5 5.6
Few times a year 6.8 11.2 6.6 13.4
Once a year 0.0 - 0.3** 62.9
None 1.9* 21.8 5.8 14.3
Don’t know/Refused/Not sure 4.2 14.5 0.5* 49.9
Quickness of sharing content online

2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Immediately after reading the headlines 5.8 12.2 2.8 21.1
After I skimmed through the contents 13.6 7.6 90.2 1.2
After I read through the contents 78.9 1.6 4.0 17.3
Don’t know/Not sure 1.8 22.3 2.3 23.1
Do you know what fake news is?

2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Yes 91.3 0.9 94.3 0.9
No 4.9 13.3 3.2 19.6
Awareness of SEBENARNYA.MY portal

2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Yes 20.3 6.0 28.0 5.7
No 77.4 1.6 65.8 2.6
Security perception when using the Internet

2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Very secured 3.7 10.2 0.5* 28.3
Secured 46.8 2.1 32.7 2.9
Neutral 23.3 3.6 42.1 2.4
Not secured 16.9 4.4 16.8 4.5
Not very secured 0.9 21.0 0.6* 26.1
Perception on confidentiality of personal data kept by the following organizations - Government

2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Yes 50.4 2.1 36.9 2.4
No 17.9 4.4 28.0 3.7
Neutral 15.7 4.8 18.5 4.8
Perception on confidentiality of personal data kept by the following organizations – Service providers
2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Yes 40.6 2.5 34.5 2.5
No 25.1 3.6 30.0 3.6
Neutral 17.1 4.6 18.7 4.7
Perception on confidentiality of personal data kept by the following organizations – Non-government bodies
2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Yes 40.2 2.5 35.8 2.4
No 24.0 3.7 29.5 3.6
Neutral 17.8 4.5 18.1 4.8
Cybercrime experienced
2016 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Virus or malicious code 31.1 3.0 4.4 9.2 1.3 17.5
Spam 30.9 3.1 13.7 5.0 4.3 9.6
Fraud 17.7 4.4 23.6 3.6 27.4 3.3
Hacking and intrusion 8.8 6.6 4.1 9.6 4.7 9.2
Abuse of personal information 6.2 8.0 3.4 10.6 1.8 15.0
Cyberbully 4.2 9.8 0.6* 26.7 0.5* 30.0
None of the above 47.3 2.2 61.6 1.6 9.3 6.4
Don't know/Refused/No answer - - 5.2 8.51 56.8 1.8
Multiple responses
Types of cyber bullying experienced
2022 (%) RSE

Masquerading 49.9* 30.2
Trickery 49.9* 30.2
Harassment 22.8** 55.4
Dissing 13.7** 75.6
Trolling 4.5** 138.2
Cyberstalking 4.5** 138.2
Fraping 0.0 0.0
Exclusion 0.0 0.0
The last time when a cybercrime was experienced

2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Last 6 months 53.1 3.2 51.6 3.4
Last 12 months 27.7 5.6 18.9 7.3
Last 2 years 7.6 12.0 12.4 9.3
More than 3 years ago 9.4 10.7 14.7 8.5
Don’t know/Not sure 2.3 22.7 1.9* 25.1
Action taken following a cybercrime experienced

2016 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Changed password for online account 64.6 2.1 16.5 7.8 13.6 8.8
Discussed with people around 63.2 2.1 17.8 7.4 22.9 6.4
Installed security software 46.8 3.0 9.0 10.9 4.1 16.9
Reported to Internet service providers 18.2 6.0 6.3 13.3 7.2 12.6
Reported to authorities 8.0 9.5 14.9 8.2 18.9 7.3
Others 3.2 15.6 4.1 16.5 1.8* 26.2
Did not take any action 13.8 7.0 44.0 3.9 33.9 4.9
Don’t know/Not sure - - 1.8* 25.6 0.9 36
Ignore - - - - 10.4 10.3
Block - - - - 5.2 15
Multiple responses
Importance of online privacy

2016 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Extremely important 59.1 1.7 60.9 2.8 47.3 3.7
Important 32.8 2.9 36.4 4.6 44.6 3.9
Neutral - - 1.4* 28.7 2.4 22.5
Not important 7.6 7.1 0.5* 48.4 2.4 22.4
Extremely not important 0.5* 28.8 - - 0.3** 60.4
Don’t know/Not sure - -- 0.8* 37.6 2.3 22.9
Multiple responses
Sharing of personal information online

2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Yes 30.6 8.6 26.6 5.8
No 67.8 3.9 70.0 2.3
Don’t know/Not sure 1.8* 43.4 2.8 20.7
Type of personal information shared online

2016 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Photo of themselves 69.8 1.3 76.7 3.4 35.4 9.2
Date of birth 58.5 1.7 65.1 4.6 32.8 9.7
Real name 55.0 1.8 80.2 3.1 67.5 4.7
Email address 50.7 2.0 58.5 5.2 40.4 8.3
Study/work place 41.3 2.4 47.3 6.6 12.8 17.7
Phone number 40.5 2.5 54.7 5.7 61.5 5.4
Home location 26.7 3.4 39.1 7.8 29.8 10.4
Others 2.2 13.6 3.9* 31.0 0.0 0.0
None of the above 7.8 7.0 0.8** 70.4 0.6** 90.2
Bank details - - - - 0.9** 70.2
Identity Card (IC) - - - - 0.0 0.0
Don’t know/Not sure - - - - 0.2** 141.3
May I know if you are a parent?

2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Yes 41.1 2.4 60.8 1.7
No 57.7 1.7 38.7 2.6
Number of children aged 17 and below that used Internet

2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
0 52.5 2.9 56.0 2.4
1 22.4 5.8 17.7 5.7
2 12.4 8.2 13.4 6.8
3 8.6 10.1 7.9 9.1
4 1.7* 39.0 2.0 18.5
5 and more 1.4* 43.1 2.7 15.9
Parents among Internet users with child/children aged 17 and below that have their own device to access Internet
2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Yes 56.3 4.0 76.4 2.2
No 41.3 5.4 23.4 7.3
Don’t know/Not sure - - 0.1** 141.4
How long have your children used the Internet?

2022 (%) RSE
Less than 1 year 8.3 13.4
1 to 3 years 56.2 3.6
3 to 5 years 19.8 8.1
5 to 7 years 7.7 14.0
7 to 10 years 3.5 21.1
10 to 15 years 1.6* 31.5
More than 15 years 0.0 0.0
Don’t know/Not sure 2.9 23.4
How many hours a day do your children usually use the Internet?
2022 (%) RSE
Less than 1 hour 6.6 15.1
1 to 4 hours 49.4 4.1
5 to 8 hours 23.9 7.2
9 to 12 hours 4.7 18.2
13 to 18 hours 1.1* 38.9
More than 18 hours 1.7* 30.5
Multiple responses
Children social media sites

2022 (%) RSE
YouTube 22.4 7.5
Facebook 27.1 6.6
Instagram 20.9 7.8
Tik Tok 19.8 8.1
Twitter 5.5 16.7
LinkedIn 1.7* 30.9
Others 41.9 4.7
None of the above 9.3 12.6
Parents awareness on parental control

2016 (%) RSE 2018 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Yes 51.0 4.7 62.4 2.3 55.6 4.2 57.3 3.8
No 49.0 4.8 37.6 3.8 46.6 5.3 42.7 5.0
Experience when using parental control – User friendly

2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Agree 38.7 7.8 55.5 4.6
Disagree 1.9* 44.3 5.9 22.0
Don’t know 59.2 5.1 37.1 7.9
Experience when using parental control – E ective in assisting you to monitor your child’s use of the Internet
2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Agree 40.4 7.5 57.7 1.6
Disagree 1.5* 49.6 4.5 24.2
Don’t know 58.1 5.3 36.4 8.3
Experience when using parental control – Available at affordable price

2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Agree 26.9 10.2 39.8 2.3
Disagree 3.1* 34.8 8.1 20.2
Don’t know 70.0 4.1 50.2 5.9
Actions taken by parents to ensure child online safety

2018 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Set rules and limits of Internet usage to the child 75.5 1.7 72.7 3.8 68.0 2.8
Stayed nearby the child when he/she used the
75.4 1.7 57.3 5.4 48.0 4.2
Internet
Discussed with your child about online safety 71.1 1.9 50.1 6.2 50.8 4.0
Checked the child’s social media account
57.5 2.6 47.7 6.5 40.4 4.9
and/or browser history
Used parental control service in child's device 12.2 8.0 - - 0.0 0.0
None 7.4 10.5 7.3 22.1 12.1 10.8
Don’t know/Not sure 1.8* 29.6
Reasons for not using parental control

2016 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Trust the child 69.2 3.5 45.5 7.3 36.1 11.6
Set your own rules and limits on Internet usage 59.1 4.3 49.6 6.7 22.0 16.5
Never heard of parental control service 47.4 5.5 13.9 16.5 26.0 14.8
Not convinced with the effectiveness of the
15.3 12.3 2.1* 45.4 3.9* 43.7
service
The service requires payment - - - - 1.9** 62.2
Others 9.5 16.1 14.0** 56.2 1.2** 80.9
Don’t know/Not sure 6.3 20.2 0.7** 77.7 11.4 24.4
Importance of Internet during coronavirus outbreak

2022 (%) RSE
Very important 29.9 3.1
Important 62.5 1.6
Neutral 5.1 8.8
Not important 2.4 12.9
Not very important 0.1** 63.4
Used the Internet to work from home

Before COVID-19 During COVID-19
2022 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Yes 29.0 3.2 47.0 2.3
No 71.0 1.3 53.0 1.8
Time spent on the Internet to work from home

2022 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Less than 1 hour 19.3 7.8 2.6 18.2
1 to 4 hours 30.6 5.7 20.8 5.8
5 to 8 hours 32.3 5.5 51.6 2.9
9 to 12 hours 10.0 11.4 18.0 6.3
13 to 18 hours 1.4* 32.1 2.3 19.4
More than 18 hours 2.1* 25.9 2.5 18.5
Used the Internet to study from home

2022 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Yes 79.4 1.0 71.2 1.3
No 20.6 4.0 28.8 3.2
Time spent on the Internet to study from home

2022 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Less than 1 hour 20.6 8.8 6.1 15.0
1 to 4 hours 47.3 4.7 38.4* 4.8
5 to 8 hours 21.2 8.7 38.0 4.9
9 to 12 hours 5.6 18.5 11.5 10.5
13 to 18 hours 1.2* 40.6 1.7* 28.6
More than 18 hours 1.0* 43.8 1.9* 27.3
Don’t know/Not sure 3.1* 25.0 2.4 24.4
Used video conferencing services to communicate with family or friends

2022 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Yes 77.9 1.1 83.0 0.9
No 22.1 3.8 17.0 4.5
Time spent on video conferencing services to communicate with family or friends

2022 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Less than 1 hour 67.5 1.6 52.1 2.1
1 to 4 hours 26.1 3.9 38.1 2.9
5 to 8 hours 2.8 13.6 6.0 8.9
9 to 12 hours 0.6* 29.5 0.9 23.5
13 to 18 hours 0.1** 100 0.2* 49.8
More than 18 hours 0.3* 42.0 0.7* 27.5
Ordered groceries online, either for delivery or pick-up services

2022 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Yes 61.1 1.6 58.2 1.7
No 38.9 2.6 41.8 2.4
Time spent on ordering groceries online, either for delivery or pick-up services
2022 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Less than 1 hour 72.3 2.0 60.5 2.5
1 to 4 hours 20.6 6.4 30.1 4.8
5 to 8 hours 2.7 19.8 3.4 16.9
9 to 12 hours 0.9* 35.2 1.1* 29.3
13 to 18 hours 0.2** 81.6 0.4* 46.9
More than 18 hours 0.6* 43.9 1.4* 26.9
Ordered food online, either for delivery or pick-up services

2022 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Yes 49.5 2.1 52.1 2.0
No 50.5 2.0 47.9 2.1
Time spent on ordering groceries online, either for delivery or pick-up services
2022 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Less than 1 hour 76.4 1.6 63.6 2.1
1 to 4 hours 17.8 6.2 29.1 4.4
5 to 8 hours 1.9 20.7 2.9 16.4
9 to 12 hours 0.7* 35.2 0.9 29.3
13 to 18 hours 0.1 100 0.4 47.0
More than 18 hours 0.4* 44.0 0.9 30.5
Buy goods or services online

2022 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Yes 63.3 1.6 65.9 1.5
No 36.7 2.7 34.1 2.8
Time spent on buying goods or services online

2022 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Less than 1 hour 70.2 1.7 58.9 2.1
1 to 4 hours 24.5 4.5 34.7 3.4
5 to 8 hours 1.6 19.9 2.2 16.7
9 to 12 hours 0.7* 31.6 0.9* 25.8
13 to 18 hours 0.2** 53.5 0.3* 47.0
More than 18 hours 0.4* 40.2 0.7* 29.2
Sell goods or services online

2022 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Yes 82.7 0.9 81.5 1.0
No 17.3 4.5 18.5 4.3
Time spent on selling goods or services online

2022 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Less than 1 hour 50.0 4.9 38.3 6.0
1 to 4 hours 28.9 7.7 36.3 6.3
5 to 8 hours 8.0 16.6 10.9 13.6
9 to 12 hours 2.2* 33.1 4.2 22.5
13 to 18 hours 1.6* 39.0 1.8* 35.0
More than 18 hours 2.2* 32.7 3.5 24.8
Watched streamed video content

2022 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Yes 72.1 1.3 73.2 1.2
No 27.9 3.3 26.8 3.4
Time spent on watching streamed video content

2022 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Less than 1 hour 45.9 2.6 29.0 3.7
1 to 4 hours 44.0 2.7 54.8 2.2
5 to 8 hours 4.9 10.6 10.1 7.1
9 to 12 hours 1.0 24.2 2.0 16.8
13 to 18 hours 0.3* 43.8 0.4* 36.4
More than 18 hours 0.4* 39.3 0.6* 31.3
Play online games

2022 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Yes 72.7 1.2 71.8 1.3
No 27.3 3.3 28.2 3.3
Time spent on playing online games

2022 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Less than 1 hour 40.6 4.7 26.4 6.4
1 to 4 hours 45.3 4.3 53.8 3.6
5 to 8 hours 7.2 14.0 12.1 10.3
9 to 12 hours 1.3* 34.3 1.5* 31.5
13 to 18 hours 0.2** 99.9 0.4** 63.1
More than 18 hours 0.6** 51.6 0.9* 39.9
Do you face any of these problems when using the Internet during COVID 19 pandemic in a way that makes it hard
to do the things you need to do online?
Reliability
Coverage Speed Quality
(Connection)
2022 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Yes 52.3 1.9 55.9 1.8 48.3 2.1 46.0 2.0
No 45.5 2.2 41.9 2.4 49.5 2.1 51.9 2.2
Don’t know/Not sure 1.5 16.3 1.6 16.2 1.5 16.4 1.5 16.3
Biggest emotional impact of Internet usage during COVID-19

2022 (%) RSE
Neutral 50.2 2.0
Happy 19.2 4.2
Fun 8.2 6.8
Tired 7.8 7.0
Depressed 4.2 9.7
Stress 3.1 11.4
Anxious 2.2 13.7
Angry 1.8 15.2
Others 1.5 16.7
Passionate 1.4 17.2
Isolated 0.1** 53.4
Calm 0.1** 53.5
None of the above 0** 141.4
Multiple response
Nationality
2016 (%) RSE 2018 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Malaysian 92.9 0.6 94.2 0.5 91.5 0.6 98.0 0.3
Non-Malaysian 7.1 7.4 5.8 10.1 8.5 6.5 2.0 14.4
Gender
2016 (%) RSE 2018 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Female 42.6 2.4 41.0 1.8 45.7 2.2 45.0 2.3
Male 57.4 1.8 59.0 1.3 54.3 1.8 55.0 1.8
Age group
2016 (%) RSE 2018 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
5-9 0.4* 32.7 0.5 21.3 0.4* 31.4 0.9 20.9
10-14 - - - - - - 3.4 10.9
15-19 12.6 5.4 7.6 5.3 9.3 6.2 11.0 5.8
20-24 21.4 3.9 15.6 3.5 34.1 2.8 12.8 5.3
25-29 16.7 4.6 14.3 3.7 11.8 5.4 16.2 4.6
30-34 15.4 4.8 15.3 3.6 11.7 5.4 10.3 6.0
35-39 10.5 6.0 10.6 4.4 9.5 6.1 11.5 5.7
40-44 8.0 6.9 10.8 4.4 6.4 7.6 6.3 7.8
45-49 6.2 7.9 7.1 5.5 5.9 7.9 8.0 6.9
50-54 3.7 10.5 6.7 5.7 4.5 9.1 4.1 9.8
55-59 2.4 13.0 4.9 6.7 2.9 11.5 5.8 8.2
60-64 1.4 17.3 3.7 7.8 1.4 16.6 9.4 6.3
65 and above 1.2 18.7 2.8 9.0 2.0 13.8 4.8 9.0
State of residence
2016 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Johor 11.3 5.7 11.5 5.5 9.6 6.3
Kedah 5.7 8.3 6.5 7.5 20.0 4.1
Kelantan 3.7 10.4 5.2 8.5 11.4 5.7
Melaka 3.2 11.2 2.8 11.7 15.7 4.7
Negeri Sembilan 4.1 9.9 3.3 10.7 9.7 6.2
Pahang 5.3 8.6 5.0 8.6 3.5 10.6
Perak 6.8 7.6 8.0 6.7 4.7 9.2
Perlis 0.6* 25.6 0.8 22.7 0.7 24.7
Pulau Pinang 4.8 9.1 5.6 8.2 6.0 8.1
Sabah 9.7 6.2 11.0 5.6 4.1 9.9
Sarawak 8.1 6.9 8.6 6.5 2.2 13.5
Selangor 23.8 3.7 21.5 3.8 0.8 22.3
Terengganu 3.2 11.2 4.1 9.6 2.5 12.7
W.P. Kuala Lumpur 9.1 6.5 5.6 8.1 8.4 6.8
W.P. Labuan 0.2* 43.1 0.4* 33.3 0.1** 57.5
W.P. Putrajaya 0.3* 35.4 0.3* 33.6 0.7 24.9
Urban-rural distribution
2016 (%) RSE 2018 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Urban 67.2 1.4 70.0 1.0 75.6 1.1 59.8 1.7
Rural 32.8 2.9 30.0 2.3 24.4 3.5 39.0 2.6
Refused - - - - - - 0.8 23.1
Don’t
- - - - - - 0.4* 32.2
know/Not sure
Household size
2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
0 - - 0.3* 38.5
1 7.3 7.1 6.4 7.8
2 8.4 6.5 12.9 5.3
3 13.1 5.1 17.2 4.5
4 21.0 3.8 19.5 4.1
5 20.4 3.9 20.1 4.1
6 12.3 5.3 10.3 6.0
7 7.0 7.2 6.7 7.6
8 4.5 9.2 3.2 11.2
9 1.7 14.9 0.8 22.4
10 and above 4.3 9.3 2.5 12.6
Highest level of education

2016 (%) RSE 2018 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Degree or higher (include
19.8 4.1 26.1 2.6 23.4 3.6 30.5 3.1
Advanced Diploma)
Diploma 16.9 4.5 18.5 3.2 22.3 3.7 16.4 4.6
STPM/STAM/
Certificate/UEC-Senior Middle 9.3 6.4 7.0 5.5 6.3 7.7 4.9 9.0
Three
SPM/SPVM 31.7 3.0 30.3 2.3 30.9 3.0 29.1 3.2
Sijil 4 Thanawi /SMA 0.2* 47.0 0.1* 50.0 0.7 22.9 0.3* 34.8
PT3/PMR/UEC-Junior Middle
7.6 7.1 5.7 6.2 3.7 10.1 3.5 10.8
Three
Secondary school 9.5 6.3 6.1 6.0 6.4 7.6 6.7 7.6
Primary school 4.5 9.4 5.3 6.4 2.4 12.6 5.4 8.5
Others - - - - 0.6* 25.2 0.3* 36.2
None 0.5* 27.7 1.0 14.8 2.3 13.0 1.6 16.1
Employment
2016 (%) RSE 2018 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
Self employed 15.6 4.7 18.7 3.2 11.7 5.5 16.4 4.6
Employed 54.6 1.9 51.8 1.5 53.8 1.8 49.1 2.1
Unemployed 10.4 6.0 12.0 4.1 11.6 5.5 18.2 4.3
Full time student 17.1 4.5 12.1 4.1 20.5 3.9 7.8 7.0
Retired 2.2 13.6 5.5 6.3 2.3 12.9 8.1 6.9
Current full time students educational status

2016 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
College/University 67.4 3.4 79.9 2.2 70.7 4.7
Secondary school 31.6 7.3 11.0 12.5 21.6 13.9
Primary school 0.9** 52.2 0.2** 63.1 7.5* 25.7
Average monthly income category

2016 (%) RSE 2020 (%) RSE 2022 (%) RSE
RM1,000 and below 15.9 5.8 34.1 2.8 29.7 3.1
RM1,001 - RM3,000 51.9 2.7 37.1 2.6 34.3 2.8
RM3,001 - RM5,000 19.7 5.2 11.5 5.5 17.9 4.4
Above RM5,000 12.5 6.7 7.4 7.0 11.6 5.6
Refused - - 10.0 5.9 6.4 7.8
Predictive Analysis
Variable Description
Gender Gender of Internet user. Values
include: Male, Female
Ethnicity Ethnicity of Internet user.
Values include: Malay, Bumiputera Sabah/Sarawak, Chinese, Indian, Others/ Foreigner
Employment Employment status of Internet user.
Values include: Employed, Self employed, Unemployed, Retired, Full time student
Hotspot Status of whether the Internet user has ever used personal hotspot.Values
include: Yes, No
Duration of daily Duration of daily use of the Internet in hours.
use of Internet Values include: less than 4 hours, 5 to 8 hours, 9 to 12 hours, 13 to 18 hours,more than
18 hours
Online shopping Whether an Internet user does online shopping.Values
include: Yes and No
Experienced with Whether a user has previously experienced any form of cybercrimeValues
cybercrime include: Yes and No
Data security Whether a user perceives that their data is kept secured by any organisations
by external (government, non-government & service providers)
organisations Values include: Yes, No, Neutral, Don’t know/Not sure
Sharing content Whether a user has shared contents onlineValues
online include: Yes and No
Years of experience The number of years a user has been using the Internet
with Internet use Values include: 1 to 3 years, 3 to 5 years, 5 to 7 years, 7 to 10 years, 10 to 15years, More
than 15 years and Don’t know/Not sure
Home Whether a user accesses Internet from homeValues
include: Yes and No
Type of broadband The type of broadband an Internet user uses Values
used include: Fixed, Mobile, Both and Neither
Online government Whether an Internet user uses online government servicesValues
services include: Yes and No
Sell goods and Whether an Internet user sells goods and services onlineValues
services online include: Yes and No
Cloud storage Whether an Internet user uses cloud storageValues
include: Yes and No
Facebook Whether an Internet user owns a Facebook accountValues
include: Yes and No
Twitter Whether an Internet user owns a Twitter accountValues
include: Yes and No
LinkedIn Whether an Internet user owns a LinkedIn accountValues
include: Yes and No
Instagram Whether an Internet user owns an Instagram accountValues
include: Yes and No
Youtube Whether an Internet user owns a Youtube accountValues
include: Yes and No
TikTok Whether an Internet user owns a TikTok account Values include:
Yes and No
Feeling secure online Whether an Internet user feels secure online
Values include: Secure, Not secure and Don’t know/Not sure
Region The region of an Internet user’s state of residence. Values include:
Central (Selangor, Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya, Negeri Sembilan), North (Perlis,
Kedah, Pulau Pinang, Perak),
East Coast (Kelantan, Terengganu, Pahang), South
(Melaka, Johor),
East (Sarawak, Labuan, Sabah)
Model Coe icients
Predict likelihood of sharing content online
Independent variables Coefficient Odds Ratio

Intercept -2.2926*** 0.1010***
Experienced with cybercrime
Yes(compared to No) 0.7429*** 2.1021***
Hotspot
Yes (compared to No) 0.7998*** 2.2252***
Online shopping
More than 4 hours (compared to Less than 4 hours) 0.4412 *** 1.5545 ***
Employment
Self employed (compared to Employed) 0.2508 1.2850
Unemployed (compared to Employed) -0.0028 0.9972
Retired (compared to Employed) 0.0240 1.0243
Full time student (compared to Employed) 0.0771 1.0801
* Significant **Very significant ***Extremely significant

Predict likelihood of feeling secure online

Intercept -0.0787 0.9243
Share content online
Yes(compared to No) 0.2398** 1.2710**
Data security by external organisations
Yes (compared to No) -1.8928*** 0.1507***
Neutral (compared to No) -0.8991*** 0.4069***
Don’t know/Not sure (compared to No) -1.2020*** 0.3006***
Experienced with cybercrime
Yes(compared to No) 0.8005*** 2.2267***
Ethnicity
Chinese (compared to Malay) 0.5925*** 1.8085***
Indian (compared to Malay) -0.1286 0.8793
Bumiputera Sabah / Sarawak (compared to Malay) 0.3924 ** 1.4806
Other -0.8908* 0.4103*
Gender
Male (compared to Female) -0.5694*** 0.5659**
Employment
Employed (compare to Unemployed) 0.2625 1.3001
Self-employed (compare to Unemployed) 0.0751 1.0780
Full-time student (compare to Unemployed) 0.3647 1.4401
Retired (compare to Unemployed) 0.2634 1.3013

Predict likelihood of experiencing cyberbullying

Intercept 3.7668 *** 43.2396 ***
Years of experience with Internet use
5 to 10 years (Less than 5 years) 0.1857 1.2041
More than 10 years (Less than 5 years) 0.0887 1.0928
4 to 8 hours (compared to Less than 4 hours) 0.2138 * 1.2384 *
More than 8 hours (compared to Less than 4 hours) 0.7671 *** 2.1536 ***
Type of broadband
Mobile (compared to Fixed) 0.2104 * 1.2341 *
Both (compared to Fixed) 0.2098 1.2334
Neither (compared to Fixed) 0.7564 * * 2.1306 *
Sells goods and services online
Facebook
Yes (compared to No) 0.0701 1.0726
Twitter
LinkedIn
Instagram
Yes (compared to No) -0.2415 * 0.7854 *
Youtube
Yes (compared to No) -1.9128*** 0.1477***
WhatsApp
Yes (compared to No) -1.7602 *** 0.1720 ***
Telegram
Yes (compared to No) -0.0407 0.9601
WeChat
Yes (compared to No) 0.4396 ** 1.5521 **
Share content online
Yes (compared to No) -0.6056 *** 0.5457 ***
Ethnicity
Chinese (compared to Malay) 0.3786 ** 1.4603 **
Indian (compared to Malay) 1.6256 *** 5.0815 ***
Bumiputera Sabah/Sarawak (compared to Malay) 1.0353 *** 2.8159 ***
Other (compared to Malay) 0.5098 1.6649

Region
East (compared to Central) 0.0254 1.0257
East coast (compared to Central) -0.0343 0.9663
North (compared to Central) 0.4598*** 1.5838***
South (compared to Central) -0.4735*** 0.6228***
Region
East (compared to Central) -0.1399 0.8694

Tables and Figures

Table 1: Categorisation of Internet users by the length of access ...................................................... 24
Table 2 : List of definition for type of cyberbullying .............................................................................. 58
Figure 1 : Internet users and non-Internet users over the years, 2012-2022 ..................................... 15
Figure 2 : Percentage of non-Internet users, by age group .................................................................. 16
Figure 3 : Reasons for not using Internet across years, 2014-2022 ................................................... 17
Figure 4 : Non-Internet users who intend to use Internet in the future ............................................... 18
Figure 5 : Non-Internet users who intend to use Internet again .......................................................... 18
Figure 6 : Years of experience with Internet ......................................................................................... 20
Figure 7 : Hours spent on the Internet .................................................................................................. 21
Figure 8 : Hours spent on the Internet, by age group ........................................................................... 23
Figure 9 : Location of access ................................................................................................................ 25
Figure 10 : Internet access from home................................................................................................. 28
Figure 11 : Access the Internet from home, by strata .......................................................................... 29
Figure 12 : Experience with personal hotspot ..................................................................................... 30
Figure 13 : Device to access Internet ................................................................................................... 31
Figure 14 : Online activities ................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 15 : Other online activities ......................................................................................................... 34
Figure 16 : Online media spent ............................................................................................................. 35
Figure 17 : Pyramid of transaction-based and non-transaction-based online activities ................... 36
Figure 18 : Social networking applications .......................................................................................... 37
Figure 19 : Social networking applications .......................................................................................... 39
Figure 20 : Types of content shared online .......................................................................................... 40
Figure 21 : Purpose of sharing content online ...................................................................................... 41
Figure 22 : Online content sharing platforms ....................................................................................... 42
Figure 23 : Actions taken before sharing content online ..................................................................... 43
Figure 24 : Frequency of sharing content online .................................................................................. 44
Figure 25 : Speed of sharing content online ......................................................................................... 45
Figure 26 : Fake news ............................................................................................................................ 46
Figure 27 : Awareness of SEBENARNYA.MY portal ............................................................................. 47
Figure 28 : Security perception when using the Internet ..................................................................... 50
Figure 29 : Data kept confidential ......................................................................................................... 51
Figure 30 : Experienced any cybercrime while using the Internet....................................................... 52
Figure 31 : Cybercrime experienced .................................................................................................... 53
Figure 32 : Last time experienced cybercrime ..................................................................................... 54
Figure 33 : Cybercrimes experienced by gender.................................................................................. 56
Figure 34 : Cybercrimes experienced by age group ............................................................................. 57
Figure 35 : Type of cyberbullying experienced ..................................................................................... 58
Figure 36 : Type of cyberbullying experienced, by gender ................................................................... 59
Figure 37 : Type of cyberbullying experienced, by age ......................................................................... 60
Figure 38 : Action taken following cybercrime experienced................................................................ 61
Figure 39 : Importance of online privacy .............................................................................................. 62
Figure 40 : Sharing of personal information online .............................................................................. 62
Figure 41 : Usage of Internet among children ...................................................................................... 63

Figure 42 : Children have his/her own device to access Internet ....................................................... 64
Figure 43 : Children online activities .................................................................................................... 65
Figure 44 : Social media account owns by children ............................................................................ 66
Figure 45 : Awareness of parental control services............................................................................. 67
Figure 46 : Experience when using parental control service ............................................................... 69
Figure 47 : Reasons for not using parental control .............................................................................. 70
Figure 48 : Actions taken by parents to ensure child online safety ..................................................... 71
Figure 49 : Level of control for children while accessing the Internet ................................................ 72
Figure 50 : Level of important of Internet during COVID-19 ................................................................ 74
Figure 51: Percentage Internet users who engage with activities before and .................................... 75
Figure 52: Comparison of Internet users (%) who spent 5 hours and more on Internet activities
before and during COVID-19 ................................................................................................................ 76
Figure 53: Problem faced when using Internet during COVID-19 pandemic...................................... 78
Figure 54: Problem faced when using Internet during COVID-19 pandemic, by gender .................... 79
Figure 55: Problem faced when using Internet during COVID-19 pandemic, by age group ............... 80
Figure 56: Problem faced when using Internet during COVID-19 pandemic, by strata ..................... 81
Figure 57: Emotional impact of Internet usage during COVID-19 pandemic ..................................... 83
Figure 58: Emotional impact of Internet usage during COVID-19 pandemic, by gender ................... 84
Figure 59: Emotional impact of Internet usage during COVID-19 pandemic, by age group ............... 85

Ius 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ius 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ius 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Internet Users Survey 2022 | 1

SURUHANJAYA KOMUNIKASI DAN MULTIMEDIA MALAYSIA

© MALAYSIAN COMMUNICATIONS AND MULTIMEDIA COMMISSION, 2022

Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission

Tel: +603 8688 8000

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 7

IUS 2022 also focuses on emerging Internet issues as a continuation of previous

IUS 2022’s objectives were:

Percentage distribution of Internet users and non-Internet users

Non-Internet user Internet user 92.7%

2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022

Non-Internet users by age

Figure 2 : Percentage of non-Internet users, by age group

1 ITU 2021 Press Release. https://www.itu.int/en/mediacentre/Pages/PR-2021-11-29-FactsFigures.aspx

Reasons not using Internet, by age

Figure 3 : Reasons for not using Internet across years, 2014-2022

Yes No Don't know

2022 90.0% 7.4%

2020 8.0% 87.0% 5.3%

Figure 4 : Non-Internet users who intend to use Internet in the future

Would need someone Can go online again Don't know/Not sure

Figure 5 : Non-Internet users who intend to use Internet again

Internet access and use

Years of experience with Internet

Less than 1 to less 3 to less 5 to less 7 to less 10 to less 15 years

Figure 6 : Years of experience with Internet

Duration of daily use of Internet

Further, the donation of online devices to underprivileged communities by the government

More than 11.7% 2022

Less than 3.9%

Figure 7 : Hours spent on the Internet

Duration of daily use of Internet, by age

16.1% Less than 20

Less than 0.1%

Figure 8 : Hours spent on the Internet, by age group

Categorisation of Internet users by the length of access

Table 1: Categorisation of Internet users by the length of access

Year Mild Regular Heavy

2022 30.5% 44.7% 18.8%

2020 26.2% 50.1% 20.5%

2018 48.8% 37.3% 13.8%

Figure 9 : Location of access

of those who access the Internet

Figure 10 : Internet access from home

Fixed broadband Mobile broadband

2020 2022 2020 2022

Figure 12 : Experience with personal hotspot

Device to access Internet

Figure 13 : Device to access Internet

used the Internet to communicate

used the Internet to get information

Figure 14 : Online activities

Figure 15 : Other online activities

Nevertheless, online media consumption on a weekly basis witnessed a declining trend in

Figure 16 : Online media spent

Figure 17 : Pyramid of transaction-based and non-transaction-based online activities

Social networking and comunication applications

Figure 18 : Social networking applications

Figure 19 : Social networking applications