COMMENT | Mission impossible to control minds of the people
COMMENT | Isn’t it ironic that a few years ago, the Malaysian police did not do anything about one of its senior officers having large sums of money deposited into his bank accounts in Australia? Isn’t it a bigger irony that he was exonerated and the police decreed that he need not account for his unlikely wealth and the source of it?
Isn’t it also an irony that the same police force now demands the arrest of an editor whose primary “offence” appears to have reproduced a previously done artwork on the cover of a book?
Isn’t it a bigger folly that the police want to use the threat of an Interpol Red Notice now when they had failed to use it when there was a genuine reason -- when all the thieving was going on in 1MDB?
Wouldn’t it be the ultimate indignation when Interpol tears up the request like when the police applied for a Red Notice for Sarawak Report editor Claire Rewcastle-Brown a few years ago?
Why use a sledgehammer to swat a fly? Is there a crackdown on freedom of expression? It looks obvious with the recent actions. Doesn’t it look concerted and not camouflaged? Isn’t the arbitrary pettiness a big giveaway?
Over the weeks, we have seen pockets of action against media personnel and concerned citizens and groups who have expressed their views on matters of public importance.
It is quite obvious from its recent response that this government will ...
COMMENT | Isn’t it ironic that a few years ago, the Malaysian police did not do anything about one of its senior officers having large sums of money deposited into his bank accounts in Australia? Isn’t it a bigger irony that he was exonerated and the police decreed that he need not account for his unlikely wealth and the source of it?
Isn’t it also an irony that the same police force now demands the arrest of an editor whose primary “offence” appears to have reproduced a previously done artwork on the cover of a book?
Isn’t it a bigger folly that the police want to use the threat of an Interpol Red Notice now when they had failed to use it when there was a genuine reason -- when all the thieving was going on in 1MDB?
Wouldn’t it be the ultimate indignation when Interpol tears up the request like when the police applied for a Red Notice for Sarawak Report editor Clare Rewcastle-Brown a few years ago?
Why use a sledgehammer to swat a fly? Is there a crackdown on freedom of expression? It looks obvious with the recent actions. Doesn’t it look concerted and not camouflaged? Isn’t the arbitrary pettiness a big giveaway?
Over the weeks, we have seen pockets of action against media personnel and concerned citizens and groups who have expressed their views on matters of public importance.
It is quite obvious from its recent response that this government will not accept or tolerate constructive criticism – even if it is beneficial for the administration of the country.
So the pussyfooting has to stop. If the government wants to say that it has strict forms of censorship and will allow no dissension whatsoever, then say it directly instead of in roundabout ways. The reality of using the catch-all clause - “misuse of network services” under the MCMC Act – is no longer tenable. The ominous danger signs are obvious for all to see.
Shouldn’t the government abandon its feeble and futile attempts to control what its citizens should read or watch? As I wrote previously, the days of controlling minds and thoughts through censorship and suppression are long over. The Worldwide Web has put an end to such old ways about doing it.
In a borderless world, information flows freely and no one should or can stem the flow. What happens in another part of the world is brought into our living rooms not just in a jiffy but instantaneously.
So why all this sudden interest in what is published and what is not? Why all about the singer but not the song? Can’t we as citizens and more importantly, stakeholders, express different opinions using different platforms to agree to disagree?
Why deny the people a choice to make an educated, informed and well-rounded decision after understanding the issues from all sides? Why should I listen to the opposition and not the government and vice-versa? It’s is my choice.
Yes, citizens or even visitors to this blessed land are bound by the country’s laws. That is a given. But when archaic laws are dug up, the cover of the hidden agenda is blown. When intrusive, oppressive and repressive clauses are used selectively, dissemination of truthful information takes on a different dimension.
Why the sudden change?
Kean Wong, who edited Rebirth, Reformasi, Resistance and Hope was initially investigated under Section 5 of the Emblems and Names (Preventing Unlawful Use) (Amendment) Act 2016. But now, it appears that they have thrown him under the bus. It was reported last week that the case is being investigated under Section 4 (1) of the Sedition Act 1948, Section 8 (1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 as well as Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998.
Now, an old out-of-date clause is being used to prevent documentary makers operating in the country. But is its implementation and enforcement feasible? The producers can shoot without permission, edit in a hotel room and publish it immediately on YouTube before the government can say, “Big Brother is after you”.
So there’s a wedding around the corner and the happy couple may want it to be documented for posterity. It now appears that you have to submit the storyboard and the names of the crew for vetting and who knows if the man perched on the special branch discovers that you had a brush with the law as a teenager. By the time clearance is given, the couple may have already ended up with a bundle of joy.
Ridiculous? Yes, but who cares as long as the objective of putting fear into people has been achieved?
Why all these in an era when news travels so fast today and is akin to “nasi sudah jadi bubur” (the rice has become porridge) the following minute? Isn’t this what are lawmakers took into account when embracing information technology?
Where have we gone wrong and what has Joe Public done to deserve such treatment? Wasn’t there a promise of free speech made by would-be lawmakers when they sought the mandate of the people two years ago? Wasn’t it the previous prime minister who ordered the police to stop arresting those criticising him?
Or we going back to the times when the entire machinery propagated the “truth” by declaring that “there is nothing wrong with 1MDB” which was followed by the arrest of editors and suspension of newspapers and blocking of websites? Doesn’t it all give the impression that we are returning to those dark days?
Why the sudden change? Are there fears that the actions of current leaders would be scrutinised by the electorate? Being transparent and accountable is what makes good governance. The basic principle of integrity is doing what is right, even when no one is looking.
So if one is doing wrong and putting his hand in the government kitty, doesn’t anyone have the right to make it public to protect the interests of the community as a whole?
But then, if our leaders do not want to come under scrutiny, they might as well not make themselves available for public service. Instead, they should be involved in family-run company enterprises where everything and anything goes – no questions asked.
In short, all that can be said that if elected (and appointed) leaders can’t stand the heat is that they ought to get out of the kitchen instead of fanning it towards the people who want to do see some similitude of law and order.
R NADESWARAN says every citizen has a right to express his or her views with a view towards good governance which in turn will lead to a better quality of life for all. Email him at citizen.nades22@gmail.com with your comments.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.