* Commentary by Mustafa K. Anuar

THE freedoms of expression and the press are considered too important to be left to the mercy of ruling politicians who may have agendas inimical to the larger interests and concerns of ordinary citizens and fear public scrutiny.

That is why one runs the risk of expecting too much of the government of the day if one assumes that it will make use of its powers to protect freedom of expression instead of to shield itself from criticism, as former finance minister Lim Guan Eng recently said.

Lim said this in reference to the charges brought under the Communications and Multimedia Act against the indefatigable graphic artist Fahmi Reza over his satirical artwork about ruling politicians.

Even a government that professes to have the best of intentions in the service of the people and which supposedly has nothing to hide still need to be monitored by a free and independent media in pursuit of transparency and accountability.

The media just cannot afford to drop its guard no matter who is in power.

Creative people, such as satirists and cartoonists, also have a useful role to play as checks and balances.

This is especially so when the days of the government knows best are gone, and in a political environment of self-preservation.   

To be sure, the freedom of expression and media freedom sought after are not absolute, contrary to allegations of certain politicians. 

In the long run, what is basically needed in a thriving democracy are legal safeguards that by and large promote and protect freedom of expression and media freedom so that constructive and well-informed criticisms are not easily dismissed as public annoyance or factors that could potentially disrupt public order and peace.

This explains why advocates of rights and freedoms have called for a repeal or fine-tuning of certain laws, such as the Printing Presses and Publications Act, Sedition Act, Official Secrets Act and Communications and Multimedia Act, in the effort to strengthen legal and democratic structures.

Some of these laws have definitions that are so broad that they can be stretched to lend themselves to the possibility of selective interpretation. Others have certain terms not defined. 

Let’s take the example of the Communications and Multimedia Act. Section 233 of the law makes it an offence for any person to use a network facility to knowingly make, create, solicit or initiate a communication which is obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person. This carries a penalty of up to RM50,000 or one year’s imprisonment or both. 

The bone of contention among media freedom campaigners is, for instance, what to be “annoyed” means is not clear. Also, any Malaysian can make a police report because they are “annoyed”, irrespective of whether they are a target of a particular communication.

It is feared that dissenting voices may be regarded as causing “annoyance” and hence face the prospects of being silenced.

So, it really does not matter that when Pakatan Harapan (PH) was in power, as Lim insisted, no one was charged under cyber laws “for criticising the prime minister, cabinet ministers or political parties, regardless of how false and unfair the criticisms…”

What does matter is that questionable laws were still in place when the PH had the power and opportunity to see to it that at least some of these laws do not erode freedom of expression and violate democratic practices. 

The freedoms of expression and the media cannot and should not be dependent on the goodwill of ruling politicians. 

As the likes of Fahmi will tell you, such freedoms must be fought for.  – February 20, 2022.