AUGUST 22 — After mooting a registration system of online news portals, the government is now looking — again — at Internet access in general, where its limited control has provided a bastion of what free access to information Malaysians have.
The government apparently believes it has public support in its mooted proposal to begin regulating internet access in Malaysia, with Barisan Nasional strategic communications director Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan quoted by media reports as saying the move is only to regulate, not control.
And make no mistake, this supposed “regulation” seems aimed at publication of news stories and commentaries, not child pornography or any other abhorrent things on the internet.
“That one I don’t understand. I am trying to understand the psyche of Malaysians. Why is it that you know the story is so outlandish, so you know that it’s not right, but still you want to forward it to your WhatsApp groups and whatnot.
“That’s the nature of us. So if we cannot have self-discipline, then the government has to step in,” he was quoted as saying by The Malaysian Insider. ”We have to draw the line. This is not about Umno, this is not about politics. It is about the stability of the economy, the nation’s security, the functioning of the country.”
But this is simply misguided. Regulating the internet does not contribute any of these supposed benefits.
At the heart of it, regulation of the internet in this sense — essentially the regulation of information flow —is detrimental to Parliamentary democracy, if we are to go by everyone’s new favourite phrase from Section 124B of the Penal Code.
Here’s why: a vibrant democracy hinges upon the freedom of expression. For democracy to work as it is meant to, citizens must be as informed as they can be.
That is the point of repeated calls for further liberation of the media. As we have seen with our newspapers, with regulation inevitably comes control. And with control comes power to influence information flow — which in turn is simply bad news for the reader.
Now if we were to regulate internet access in terms of what Datuk Abdul Rahman has stated above, it is likely the government wants to be able to curb the spread of so-called “outlandish” and “not-right” information.
The problem is who decides what is outlandish and what isn’t right? The government? What if the information in quesiton is something true and negative and is about the government? Hello, conflict of interest.
Clearly the only party who benefits from any form of regulation over internet access in this manner is the government. It gains further power over what information we, regular Malaysians, can and cannot have.
It goes without saying these are some of the limits to free speech which none of us should cross. But whomsoever crosses these limits should be made accountable through due process.
And due process means the litigation avenues that remain open to everyone who has need of it.
The simple truth is that the government already has all the tools it might require to maintain peace and order and keep the economy in as healthy a state as it can be, bearing in mind a free economy is always subject to external factors beyond our control.
And those tools lie in the rule of law against hate speech, defamation, inflammatory and racist statements and the like.
These laws already exist here. They can be applied. They should be applied.
In fact the prime minister himself has initiated defamation lawsuits against various parties. And that is the way it should be.
Whoever defames someone should face a lawsuit in court. Those who speak with hate and racism should be charged in accordance with the law. If anyone slanders another, counter with the truth, especially if the government is on the slandered end.
That is the point of having these laws — to be applied whenever someone transgresses them. We have enough laws to deal with a myriad of potential abuses vis-a-vis information spread on the internet and any new laws for regulating internet access would risk redundancy if they are responsive in nature.
If they are pre-emptive instead, they risk stepping on basic rights of free access to information, which is crucial in any functioning democracy. Because control over what information citizens can and cannot have amounts to censorship.
Now, in that scenario, who’s really being detrimental to Parliamentary democracy?
* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
