The frivolity of social media restrictions

Earlier this year, I was invited to deliver a TEDx presentation in Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM).

I talked about the marvellous potential of social media as a platform to cultivate and pursue interests.

Nevertheless, this is only possible when there is freedom of information, which inevitably comes together with the freedom to offend as there is freedom of speech.

What this environment creates is a sense of diversity that enriches the value of debates. It is the freedom to contest ideas, beliefs and situations that allows people to decide what is best for them and sometimes (especially some who detest it), that may include criticising certain individuals that make up the current administration of the country – because people are entitled to question the capacity and competence of their leaders in a democracy.

In a Harvard Law Review Forum titled “The Brave New World of Social Media Censorship”, the author, Marjorie Heins concluded – “Social media sites can play a positive role in the 'unique and wholly new medium of worldwide human communication' that is the Internet not only by trimming censorship policies to a minimum but also by fostering robust and wide-open access to the information necessary for a functioning democracy.”

I strongly believe in using social media responsibly. However, I have my reservations about imposing regulation over content.

If you are offended by the content you have to see, I supposed the best solution is to use myriad filtering methods to provide you that satisfaction, without imposing one’s own self-righteousness onto others.

At least in my eyes, that is operating in accordance to the principle of a liberal democracy, just as how our nation was founded to be. Unfortunately, this notion is not entirely reflected by our present government.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's view to strengthen Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) laws against the “unfair trial by social media” recently has echoed the sentiments of the new Communications and Multimedia Minister Datuk Seri Mohd Salleh Said Keruak.

He said the law that regulates Internet content in Malaysia will be amended to protect citizens from “slander” and “character assassination”.

Following that, Datuk Seri Azalina Othman voiced her support for the prime minister’s call for the laws to be tightened.

She believes that the anger towards the government were caused by “lies that had poisoned the rakyat’s minds” and hence, pushing for an emergency parliamentary session.

Even the other day at a youth event, I witnessed two prominent ministers lamenting about the poor use of social media, that instead of engaging in polite and healthy discussions about current affairs, a lot of Malaysians are quick to judge and share what they regard as “fitnah”.

I could even sense their frustration about the widespread phenomenon of “keyboard warriors”. Ironically, fewer politicians seem to have any qualms about their respective political party cyber troopers!

Apparently, it does not take the idiosyncrasies of the blogger Papagomo and other like-minded individuals to be a more compelling reason, even after the possible coup de tat that the Low Yat incident could have been.

These recent calls from the government for social media restrictions are seen to be self-serving, rather than for the overall public interest of encouraging greater intellectual discourse that are in line with the preservation of national unity.

If there was any seriousness about committing to preventing the spreading of sentiments that upsets the multi-cultural spectrum of the Malaysian society, there would be laws that specifically address the villainies of hatred, violence and discrimination – promoting the desire of facilitating healthy relations amongst people.

Instead, all we witness is the selective use of broad provisions of the Sedition Act and Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA), exercised on certain individuals that were obviously reeking of political motivation.

Intriguingly, we can still see the occasional proclamations of plain ignorance plaguing social media, not just coming from members of civil society but some members of the Executive as well.

Sometimes, I find myself greatly amused by the childish spats about the legitimacy of reports on financial scandals and the overly inflated slander competitions that only seem to further discredit these reputations.

So much so, most of us can already guess the likely nominees for the next #AiyoWatLah awards.

The unfortunate degradation of civility is mostly caused by a poor state of affairs. I supposed this is the end result of mass oppression.

When the majority are robbed of their role in civil society participation, there are greater tendencies for radicalisation rather than productive means of making change.

Moreover, a poor education system has only produced rigidity in ways of thought and hence, a democratically immature society that lacks the knowledge of their fundamental liberties as enshrined in the Federal Constitution.

In this case, perhaps the right question we should be asking ourselves to tackle the root of the problem is – are our politicians getting social media wrong?

Being rather reactionary to public response, defamation should be taken on a personal level and the State should not intervene in such trivialities.

Perhaps the censorship may encourage better national stability but it is my deepest concern that the best way to heal the nation is through the desensitisation of discussion so that citizens can make more informed decisions as voters.

And so, the means of removing social media as a check and balance institution to the Executive is, without a doubt, absolutely frivolous and should not be supported. – August 13, 2015.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.