AT the end of their Walk for Peace last week, activists from the Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democratic Advancement faced a police barricade, preventing them from achieving their ultimate goal of presenting a memorandum to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim at the Parliament building.

The memorandum was about the unresolved case of political aide Teoh Beng Hock, who died mysteriously in Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam 15 years ago.

After a brief altercation between the marchers and the police, the parliamentary speaker’s office subsequently sent its special officer Abdulhadi Khalid to receive the memorandum.

In the wake of the march, Anwar has scheduled a meeting with Teoh’s family on August 1.

This incident underscores the point raised by the marchers as well as other concerned citizens that Parliament, where elected representatives meet to discuss issues and make laws for the supposed benefit of the people, should be people-friendly.

There should not be physical obstacles placed in the path of Malaysians who wish to visit Parliament for a particular purpose and in a peaceful manner.

Parliament should not be out of bounds to citizens.

Pressing issues that matter to the ordinary people should be aired and discussed in the august chamber and, if need be, a stand and action taken.

Rejecting two motions to debate Teoh’s case (which has not been resolved all these years), as Speaker Johari Abdul did, seemed to have rubbed salt in the wound.

If justice is vital for the rich and famous, the poor and the common people also deserve it. Equally important to remember: justice delayed is justice denied.

Parliament, as an embodiment of the people’s representation, must strive to be attuned and sensitive to the needs and aspirations of the people.

The tragic death of TikToker influencer Rajeswary Appahu aka Esha is another issue that concerns the people.

It indicates the gravity of cyberbullying as well as the urgent need for the MPs (apart from other stakeholders) to discuss the matter and take concrete and effective measures to prevent the recurrence of such unfortunate incidents.

Cyberbullying that gives rise to such extreme forms of trolling, intrusiveness, shaming, and death threats is indeed abominable. Obviously, social media must be made safe for users.

However, it is vital that cyberbullying is clearly defined so that the law that is crafted doesn’t get abused to the extent of transgressing freedom of expression.

We must pay attention to the concern raised by advocacy group Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) regarding the government’s intention to “protect” the Parliament and the lawmakers from being “cyberbullied”, which sounds like a proposed surveillance that has gone over the top.

LFL was alarmed that the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission had been proposed to investigate members of the public who allegedly make “offensive comments” on social media concerning parliamentary proceedings.

Lawmakers are public figures who should not be insulated from public scrutiny because they’re supposed to be transparent and accountable to the very constituents who put them into positions of power in the first place.

Their ideas, policies and actions are of concern to many people.

There are times when our intelligence gets insulted by the imbecility and bigotry of certain lawmakers that demand our appropriate response.

To be sure, we’re not talking here about defamation that aims to smudge a politician’s personal character.

We’re talking about the attempt to stretch the notion of cyberbullying that could make MPs “untouchable” and disconnected from certain segments of society. This transition may lead to crude arrogance among certain politicians and also creeping authoritarianism.

There are obviously serious social and political implications when politicians are out of touch with ordinary mortals. – July 23, 2024.