The difference between Dr M and anonymous subscribers

"Therefore, Muhyiddin's government will fall. That is why Muhyiddin (below) will ensure the six MPs are found not guilty," 

– former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad

In filing an ex-parte application to initiate contempt of court proceedings against Malaysiakini and its editor-in-chief, Attorney-General Idrus Harun claimed that readers' comments “clearly meant that the judiciary committed wrongdoings, is involved in corruption, does not uphold justice and compromised its integrity.” "These comments threaten public confidence in the judiciary and are clearly aimed at tarnishing the administration of justice by the judiciary”.

This is rather bizarre considering the fact that former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad suggested that the judiciary is subservient to the executive. If anything, what the former prime minister alleged – that the executive through the judiciary would find not guilty verdicts – is more damaging to the “public’s trust in the judiciary” than anything said by anonymous commenters on a news site.

Think about this for a moment. Here we have a former prime minister who has had his own controversies with the judiciary. The case of Anwar Ibrahim is a prime example.

Here is a former prime minister who intimately knows the inner workings of the apparatus of the state – the judiciary, the security apparatus and the various other enforcement agencies – and has been accused of manipulating and controlling these agencies.

He is now alleging that a former ally turned nemesis would use these agencies in the same way his critics have accused him of corrupting the functions of these agencies, to stack the political deck in his favour.

Now, forget about partisanship, but who do you think has more influence on public opinion and - let us face facts - “credibility” with the public? Random commenters on a news thread or a former prime minister who, before his fall from Umno grace was a much-feared and respected political operative?

Dzulkifli Ahmad

Indeed, former MACC chief commissioner Dzulkifli Ahmad was so incensed with what the former prime minister said, he took to Twitter – which is what people do, these days – and said, "The statement that 'Muhyiddin will ensure that six MPs will be found not guilty' is a contempt of court! An insult to judges presiding over the cases."

Therefore, in other words, a former chief commissioner of a powerful and controversial government agency – for obvious reasons – decries the former prime minister’s “contempt of court” but the current AG decides that random anonymous comments, which no doubt most of the rakyat have no clue about, are grounds to initiate contempt of court proceedings against Malaysiakini.

Now, the AG could, of course, be oblivious to the comments of the former prime minister. There is a possibility that he has not seen these comments. There is a possibility that nobody from his department drew his attention to the comments of the former prime minister. There is a possibility that since he is handling the cases mentioned by the former prime minister, he does not have the time to keep up with current events.

Of course, he does have the time to cite five random anonymous comments in a news article, which honestly would not have gained much coverage if the AG had not decided to highlight the article.

The establishment in Malaysia always attempts to curtail speech in the comments sections of news sites. Harapan attempted to do the same but backed off. 

There is censorship in Malaysia. The press practises self-censorship when it comes to news stories and certain opinions as there are laws that restrict free speech. What we are talking about here is the state’s (PN or Harapan) attempts to silence the average citizen from expressing his or her perspective as it relates directly to news reports. Even when it comes to certain social media postings – Facebook, Instagram, etc – this is not the same as news stories and the reception they get from subscribers of news portals.

Some of these comments are bigoted, racist, lies and not only contribute but sustain the toxicity in the national discourse. I understand why some people would be offended by the speech in the comment sections of news stories. Indeed, many news portals have criteria as to what kind of speech should be restricted. There are many who would argue - considering the vile rhetoric - that this is not enough.

However, what the PN government is doing is going for the low-hanging fruit. Silencing the vox populi when the political elite openly make the same comments or worse. This is evidence of malfeasances and contempt for the average rakyat.

There is no credible argument as to why the AG homes in on Malaysiakini and random comments by anonymous subscribers and pays no attention to the fact that a former prime minister has said worse and no doubt is a bigger influence on public opinion. Yet, the AG for some odd reason believes (by his inaction or ignorance of these comments) that what the former prime minister said does not tarnish the image of the judiciary.

If anything, all this does is further tarnish the reputation of the AG’s Chambers and does nothing to enhance the reputation of the judiciary in the minds of rational people.

One last thing, with regards to the attention Hannah Yeoh is getting about what she said and Patrick Teoh being charged in court, has the AG’s Chambers decided what to do about the investigation papers that the police handed in about Zakir Naik?

---

S THAYAPARAN is Commander (Rtd) of the Royal Malaysian Navy. A retired barrister-at-law, he is one of the founding members of Persatuan Patriot Kebangsaan. - Mkini