The politics of freedom

A fight for freedom of expression in a democratic country is an act of absurdity. Unless, of course, that democracy is tainted by the grubby hands of politics and prejudice. And unfortunately, Malaysia's democracy falls under this grimy category. Freedom of expression has been curtailed under the guise of maintaining national harmony in a multiracial society. But Malaysians have long stopped believing this story.

One of those who sees through this charade is HR Dipendra, project coordinator of the SEA Legal Defence Network. According to him, the “harmony” argument has long passed its expiry date.

“What is being promoted is an elusive harmony – no one knows what it entails,” he said. “The fact is that we already live in harmony, but for some reason this doesn't sit well with the politicians. So they create a fictional world in which addressing other people's 'peculiarities' will lead to widespread riots.”

Dipendra's observation is backed by Dr Farish Noor, a political scientist at Singapore's Nanyang Technological University, who stressed that freedom of expression only becomes an issue when it is politicised.

“And in this region all forms of socio-political expression are politicised,” he said. “It is even mundane to talk about freedom of expression. It is akin to talking about the freedom to engage in commerce. Do we argue when we claim the right to open a shop?”

According to the Human Rights Watch (HRW) deputy Asia director, Phil Robertson, the concerns that HRW has about freedom of expression in Malaysia “could fill a legal pad”.

“Prime Minister Najib (Tun Razak's) declaration of needing 'a media... that is empowered to responsibly report what they see, without fear of consequence' has turned out to be just another flash-in-the-pan statement,” he stated. “The practice is nowhere near approaching the promise.”

“What Malaysia has is an increasingly insecure government, facing a political challenge. And instead of engaging in a debate based on innovation, reform, and quality programes, the government employs negative tactics to shut down and shut out other voices.”

Heady times

HRW has long called for a repeal and amendment of four “draconian” laws – the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, the Communication and Multimedia Act 1998, the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 and the Sedition Act 1948.

“We’re particularly worried that the government is increasingly willing to intrude into the previously free space for expression on the Internet where so many Malaysians get their daily news nowadays,” Robertson said. “Even former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who ran roughshod over human rights when he was in office, is saying today that the Internet should not be censored.”

Dipendra recalled the heady times during Mahathir's reign when freedom of expression flourished via the Internet despite government attempts at a clampdown.

Dipendra pointed out that Mahathir's move to promote the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) ironically provided a guarantee of freedom on the Internet. His successor, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, helped this freedom further along by allowing for more thoughts and ideas to be expressed. Dipendra, however, warned of a potential regression during Najib's rule.

“Najib is made of sterner stuff and if he feels that public opinion is not to his liking, then we will see more clampdowns, especially when the general election draws closer,” he said. “Having said that, I believe that Najib harbours the right intentions. His problem is the people surrounding him who are hellbent on manipulating freedom of expression to serve their own agendas.”

It is these agendas that have led to a blatant prejudice in the practice of freedom of expression. On the one hand, ordinary citizens like 98.8 FM DJ Jamal and rapper Wee Meng Chee, popularly known as Namewee, have been silenced for expressing themselves too freely.

On the other, freedom of expression is very much alive in the voices of Umno-owned Utusan Malaysia and Perkasa chief Ibrahim Ali. It is this biased prosecution that has fanned the dismay of many.

“My concern lies with these double standards,” said Farish. “The concern is twofold: When such double standards appear, then some people seem to think they can say whatever they like because they are in the majority.”

“Secondly, the perception of double standards merely reinforces the public view that there is in-built inequality in the governmental system. Ironically, it is precisely such double standards that do the most damage to the public image of governments and ruling elites, though they often do not see this."

HRW, meanwhile, takes solace in what it views as the continued bravery of many people to speak their minds, risk retaliation for speaking up against the government’s interest and continuing to use the Internet to broadcast their views.

“The bottom line is that Malaysia needs to learn to trust its people with their rights, and let them freely express themselves,” Robertson said. “That’s the kind of fundamental sea-change in attitudes that the Malaysian authorities need to continuously reinforce.”

courtesy of FMT