THE exercise of power by a government over its citizens in a democratic nation has its limits and is not absolute.

In general, naivety and idealism dictate that an exercise of power by the executive over citizens, if draconian, would affect the choices of its citizens when general elections are due.

However, legalities dictate that this is not the only review of government authority, as any decision made by the executive is reviewable by the court, albeit by judicial review litigation.

Further, it is noted that general common sense dictates that an administrative process by an arm of government ought to be conducted in a fair, just an equitable manner by a democratic government adhering to the principles of the rule of law.

Any semblance of impropriety is often looked at with shame and disgust as it is not befitting the running of a civil service which is generally seen as independent from politics.

The law is trite, as common law dictates that “justice must not only be done but manifestly seen to be done”.

Therefore, any irregularity or political interference in the decision-making process of the courts or an administration arm of government may be overturned if there was a semblance of impropriety.

Now an administrative process includes the conduct of a review or an investigation based on power provided by an act of parliament, be it investigation carried out by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) which is under the federal government or one’s local council which is generally under the purview of the state government.

Section 233 (1) (a) of the Communication and Multimedia Act 1997 is a piece of legislation that enables the executive-delegated authority to conduct investigative and quasi-judicial decision-making powers to impose fines and sanctions.

Following, the above there has been numerous comments on the draconian use of Section 233 (1) (a) of the Communication and Multimedia Act 1997 to stifle free speech. 

The Malaysian Bar has stated that this section ought to be repealed because of “its serious encroachment on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 10(1)(a) of our federal constitution. While Parliament may impose restrictions on this fundamental constitutional liberty, such restrictions must be reasonable and proportionate. The extremely wide and draconian effect of Section 233(1)(a) renders it an impermissible restriction, inasmuch as it unduly negates the exercise of the right to speech and expression.”

This section provides the ministry a wide-ranging power to curb free speech on the net as when it subjectively deems that content which is “offensive” and to “annoy”.

However, this article seeks to comment not on the constitutional validity of the Communication of Multimedia Act but the manner in which power is exercise when administering the power delegated by Parliament to MCMC.

The recent allegation spewed by two politicians during the recent Umno general assembly on the independence of The Malaysian Insight, its purported connections with the attorney-general’s wife, the timing of the of the response of the minister in charge of MCMC, the conduct of the investigation, and the leaking of the interview statement conducted by the investigators within MCMC to the accuser on the subsequent day, all corroborates to the perception of some misfeasance in public office.

To the man on the street, it seems that justice was not done and neither was it manifestly seen to be done.

One can only wonder if the manner of such exercise of power is conducted against the free press and a seemingly elite of society, what chance does the common man have?

Have we reverted and regressed to the days of the “maha firaun”? Therein lies the irony of politics and the democratic process in Malaysia.

Where does the future of our nation lie, in the hands of a 93-year-old ancient pharaoh who enabled this sort of politics or in the hands of the promised one whose hard work reflects an architecture of a modern and seemingly inclusive, free and just Malaysia, which is being undone by regressive politics?  – December 16, 2017.

* Bob Sharul reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.