* Commentary by Mustafa K. Anuar

MALAYSIA’S civil society groups have rightly expressed deep concern over what they consider to be increasing erosion of freedom of expression under the present Perikatan Nasional government as this obviously has serious implications for democracy and civil liberties, as well as the general welfare of Malaysians.

Such transgression of a basic freedom does not augur well for ordinary Malaysians who are currently under assault on many fronts, particularly health in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic, and finance as the consequent battered economy takes a toll on their livelihoods.

To be sure, it is a time when socio-economic hardship of the common people requires the full attention, care and appropriate actions of the powers-that-be, and this can only be effectively achieved if public feedback on government’s policies and measures is taken in good faith.

For there may be shortcomings, say, in the way the government distributes assistance of various forms to the needy in these trying times or it may have allocated insufficient funds to a particular region in the federation for healthcare purposes. Or for that matter, if violations of the pandemic SOPs by certain politicians could expose the ordinary people, who were in contact with them, to health risks.

Critical comments and suggestions on such matters are not only necessary, but also expected of right-thinking and concerned citizens.

In another instance, the Kelantan government has recently increased the allowances of its assemblymen and senior members of the state government between RM3,000 and RM5,000 per month amid the pandemic and economic challenges faced by ordinary Malaysians, particularly Kelantanese.

Would public criticism against this move be deemed offensive and uncalled for, especially when the state budget for next year runs into an estimated deficit of RM66.02 million? Surely, one would ponder, prudent spending should be a priority for the Kelantan leadership in a state whose water supply, among others, is still problematic over the years.

The right to express is essential for citizens, especially when a perceived wrong needs to be righted for the common good. Their grievances should be freely channelled into the public domain via the media for public knowledge and consumption.

In other words, the government of the day must be held accountable if and when it strays away from its promised commitment to promote and protect the interests of the people and the nation as a whole.

This assertion is premised on the firm belief that men and women, especially those in power, are not infallible. Thus, it stands to reason that they should be subjected to public scrutiny, especially when government’s policies are driven by public funds and, thus, accountable to the people.

Conversely, to contend that the ruling politicians should be insulated from or cushioned against public scrutiny and criticism is to expose our country to the risk of stepping on the slippery slope of authoritarianism, the extreme form of which is dictatorship.

It, therefore, goes against democratic principles when criticism of the present political leadership is criminalised, as exemplified by recent questioning by the authorities of certain politicians and others who were critical of the present administration.

That this is a perennial problem associated with successive governments since the country’s independence doesn’t lend legitimacy to the present government’s curtailment of freedom of expression. If anything, it is most crucial and morally incumbent upon civil society to maintain constant vigilance.

Freedom of expression, as well as media freedom, goes a long way towards ensuring that the government of the day remains transparent and accountable to the ordinary people.

Such freedom is as basic a need as food and jobs for the common people. – November 7, 2020.