life, love, *motherhood, and then more
It really isn’t the system, it’s the who is in the system.
Reader Jeff from LA got a little lost in the little discussion we're having about the books that have been banned. I'm posting his comment here for all to read, because he asks some very pertinent questions, which are worth addressing.
As an American, I am personally unfamiliar with a government that has the power to regulate speech to such a great extent that it can ban a large number of books. What gives the government the power to censor speech? Does the power of the government to censor speech reside in some constitutional power? Isn’t Malaysia a democracy, why is the government allowed to retain such power? What other forms of speech are they allowed to regulate? Are they allowed to censor certain types of political programs on television or radio? What is the effect of censorship on individuals?
I’m sorry to ask such complicated questions, but I am really interested in the effect of this government power to censor speech on your lives as Malaysians.
I'm not sure whether I'm qualified or in a position to describe the whole situation in its factuality here. But I know I'm opinionated enough to probably present you a very minishorts-sided point of view, which may not appeal to all. Then again, my opinion is really summed up in the post title.
The thing is, I believe in systems. And surprisingly, I'm not for 100% freedom, because simply, I don't think its possible to exist. A system that calls itself 100% free will have to exist in the context of total tolerance, total understanding, total acceptance of individualistic differences, and I just don't see humankind blooming into that kind of civilized mentality anytime soon, or ever. So yes, I agree to systems, and I agree to rules, because I find these things, like censorship boards and control systems somewhat necessary to protect the peace.
You could say I'm slightly pro-governmental in that sense. Actually I'm not pro-governmental. What I am, is pro-system, provided that the people who work in the system know what they're talking about, know very well the kind of things that make up the mechanics of the decisions that they are bound to make.
So no, Jeff, I don't believe in freedom of speech, that is, I don't believe in a 100% freedom, and going into the shaky bits of political bla-blas which I'm capable of crapping, I'll tell you that in the society where I live in, the people are not mature enough to take the truth as it is, because we're young, and there's too many differing idealogies in this nation, and most of us are still struggling to get along with each other.
Complete Equality and respect is a utopian concept for the world anyway.
Rambling on, I think your main question is, 'What gives the power to the government to censor speech?'
I think my answer would have been reflected above. I think most Malaysians don't really believe in 100% freedom because we know too many people are not prepared to accept the magnitude of what it may mean. In the past political turmoils and even racial riots have been recorded when people don't watch their tongues, don't watch their words… and the rules were put in place so that there is some kind of moderation over what reaches the masses. In a way the censorship laws exist to protect the overzealous and over passionate from exercising their inner suppressed reactions in an outward manner. In another way ithey exist to protect the liberals from being attacked from possible outrage-induced violence. You can pick your version of the reasons why they exist anyway, it's up to you. What I'm also saying is, when we voted our governments into their position, we did it based on the trust that the people who get voted in know very well what they are doing. We gave the government the power, because we are, in principle, a democracy.
Like in this case, we all hoped that when the ministry exercised its rights to moderate what's readable and what's not, the decisions would be logical. Deserving of respect, and agreement.
Now obviously based on the list, this ministry that is supposed to have the people's trust (or amanah, the Malay version and a better word to put it) have gone and sniped out a whole list of books… and this decision is, in my opinion, best described as silly.
So as a collective, a fraction of the people who put the government into power, that is us, the bloggers who were, voters too, are coming up with this initiative to talk about the ludicrousness of the list's existence.
Is free speech still available?
Of course it is.
The floor is open. Before you comment, take this into consideration. We're talking freedom of speech, in a controlled manner. So please. No racial bashing. No character assassination. No senseless government bashing.
Comments will be moderated closely. Thank you.
| Print article | This entry was posted by minishorts on Friday, 3 November 2006 at 6:22 pm, and is filed under General. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 3 years ago
‘What gives the power to the government to censor speech?’
It is a power that comes with the government who imposes the Internal Securities Act (ISA) which stems from the system of so-called democracy from our colonial masters, the British. The ISA’s action throughout our history has made Malaysians afraid to speak. Hence our people’s repression and fear to give opinion.
Where is freedom of speech and expression, when we are not as fortunate as the Americans to have a constitution protecting the people? Unfortunately, I can’t answer that. That’s where we are different from the Americans. The Americans allow individualism. Here, our law seem to protect only certain quarters. But even then, there is so much conflict and contrast of laws, we’re at a stage where we don’t know if the law now protects the citizens or the government. Most will say the latter.
In a way, I do agree with minishorts, that there is no such thing as 100% freedom. But what I don’t agree with, is saying it’s the system. It’s not. You don’t have a system, if you don’t have people to enforce it.
about 3 years ago
Btw, Jeff… also in contrary to the American media system, the background to almost all Malaysian mainstream media forms (print and broadcast) has a government run or supported body funding it. If that is not direct control over the dissemination of information, I don’t know what to call it.
about 3 years ago
We can never achieve the type of freedom of speech enjoyed by Americans. In fact the freedom of speech envisaged by the West is already giving problems to countries like Denmark and Australia. Where previously, the West are largely made up of homogeneous populations, with globalisation and immigrations, the West has become more multiracial in character. That is why total freedom of speech is going to cause a certain sector of the population to be unhappy. Look at the controversy involving caricature of Nabi Muhammad in Denmark and recently the Mufti of Australia and DPM of Britain on the issue of purdah. In Denmark, when the Muslims cry foul, the West cite freedom of speech. In Australia, when the Mufti exercise his freedom of speech (although I do not agree with his statement), the people cry foul. Why don’t the Australian accept this as his right to freedom of speech?
Hence I think a total 100% freedom of speech is only make belief. As the world is getting more heterogeneous, there must be certain restraint on what can be said – politically correct. Otherwise there will be chaos. Total freedom of speech can only materialise if and when everyone is very responsible and tolerant. Then again, if everyone is very responsible, isn’t that equate to self-censorship?
about 3 years ago
From minishorts:
A better word for “people’s trust” would be “legitimacy”.
Legitimacy is derived from the people. The people may extend legitimacy to the government, or the government could ‘legitimize’ itself. Either way, it doesn’t really matter as long as people’s interests are not harmed. But going too far can be disastrous…
about 3 years ago
Well, since you were nice enough to pay special attention to my post, I feel obligated to pay special attention to your response. I want to say that obviously as a product of a different culture (Chinese+American), political tradition, education, and background, I have a slightly different perspective on censorship. I just want to share my own perspective while noting that it is very much affected by my own experiences and biases and consequently, has no more validity than any other statement that others make on this topic. I just want to address the issue because while I completely agree that allowing any and all speech can be extremely dangerous, I feel that allowing the censorship of a great deal of speech is just as dangerous.
You referred to the censorship of certain political beliefs as necessary for the protection of certain individuals, i.e. to protect them from attacks both verbal and physical by opponents of their beliefs both political and/or religious. I can definitely understand your viewpoint and have seen many examples of its occurrence in our world today.
I believe that free speech is necessary because I think that untrustworthy as many people are, the government is more untrustworthy. When you have a government that can control speech, they can also control who gets elected and who runs things and make sure that things do not change over time or that they do not lose power. Now that doesn’t mean that free speech is a perfect cure. Unfortunately, in America, we have seen that arrogant and corrupt politicians have the opportunity to get into power. However, because we have free speech, we at least have a better chance to understand how bad the problem is and hopefully will do our part to fix it.
Plus, last of all, I think free speech is significant because I think that while it causes many problems while people are learning how to properly utilize it, it also gives a voice to minorities, to people who wouldn’t get a chance to be heard because they are different than those who are in power, than those who are in the government.
Thanks for listening to my question. I really appreciate it your willingness to put so much thought into this question, and I always love hearing from a different POV, which is why I keep reading your blog.
about 3 years ago
[minishorts: v v sorry for dbl posting. pls delete earlier comment, thanks]
Jeff: Americans are lucky in the sense that the journalism culture and ethics are still quite prevalent there. There are people brave enough to go digging into scandals and misdeeds and there is an avenue to publicize this, even though of course they might go through the usual government obstacles. This can be reflected in the whistleblowers of the past and present e.g. Watergate scandal. As such, there is a sense of some sort of checks and balances. There are many critics of the Iraq war, and Bush and co actually have to campaign and sweat a bit to win. Here, Msians would benefit a lot from having that same culture of integrity, ethics and truth at all costs from journalists, instead of playing to the govt’s tune. As such, a lot of information which could greatly benefit the population in decision making (read: voting time) is swept under the carpet. The press’ subservience to the govt is very obvious. A strong example: The people were clamoring for the govt to publish its methodology on how it calculates the bumiputra’s share of the economic pie. We strongly want to see this. The government then kept saying ‘if you want to see, we will show, we have nothing to hide’. And we kept saying yes we want to see. And they kept repeating their line. And still no methodology. And the press are not highlighting this though it has been some time. The press let the government get away with it. My letters to the newspapers imploring them to mention something, or to print my plea out, has gone unheeded. I strongly doubt that all sections of the American press would let Bush off in this scenario. Here, there is no sense of checks and balance, even if the criticisms (or negative facts dredged out about) the govt are completely valid and important for the population to know. Another thing is that our ruling party doesn’t really need to campaign very hard – I doubt our PM even sweats. The press has played in part in ensuring there is no mainstream platform for legitimate candidates, and as such, there is never a legitimate candidate. Thanks for listening me out all readers. Have a great day.
minishorts: keep posting girl.
about 3 years ago
I think that any government does not have the right to stop any party from telling or reporting the truth (positive statement). Deprivation of such right is unacceptable in a democratic system.
For opinions and views (normative statements), as far as the arguments are defensible and rational, it deserves the right to be known to all. A better alternative of ‘regulating the speech’ is an efficient judiciary. If a statement is libelious or offensive, it could always be brought to court. This is democracy at work. And this is good to the government too as it always take a neutral stand and let the citizens regulate themselves. Its ‘legitimacy’ could be enhanced this way.
Anyway, it’s just my three cents
about 3 years ago
One way to put Minishorts’ position would be that we’re an ‘Asian’ democracy and an evolving one at that (though there seems to be some case for concern of late). Definitely a large quarter are not ready, or in a sense not ‘mature’ enough for a Western form of the freedom of speech. On the other hand, I feel there is a great need for openness in our society, where many abuses are covered up and kept hiden in the closet.
The question of freedom in hugely complex, as philsophers across the ages have all tackled and positioned it in one way or another. For me, the ‘abiding’ question is the matrix of competing, intersecting, diverging and negotiating relations between the freedom of the individual, groups (culture, religion, to all the different demographic markers in which one may ‘classify’) and the state/nation. We are also witnessing this ‘phenomenon’ on a global scale, of that between nations. Ok… stop here, off tangent already.
about 3 years ago
Mmm… ultimately, i think we will all have different positions on this evolving question, in different ‘times’ and ‘places’.
about 3 years ago
Referring to the comment about Asian democracies, I have to say that taken within the context of a growing and developing democracy, I can understand that perhaps freedom of speech is something that must be slowly developed and expanded upon bit by bit. You definitely cannot change a culture/political system within 5 years, 10 years, or even 20 years. Sometimes it takes much longer and perhaps it is best that it is taken along more slowly. Russia perhaps is a good example of the negative result that might occur when a country decides to replace an authoritarian government with a democracy in too short a time.
However, I think I agree with Eng Aun in that the regulation of speech if it must occur should be by the judiciary and not by some nameless unelected bureaucrat. At least if the judiciary chooses to regulate and prohibit speech, they are forced to justify their action through a written decision that can be examined by all. Unelected bureaucrats on the other hand have little accountability to the public and consequently, as in the current situation, will act irrationally in deciding what speech can and should be banned.
about 3 years ago
What gives the government the power to censor speech?
The Malaysian people. We elected them.
Isn’t Malaysia a democracy, why is the government allowed to retain such power?
The majority of people allow them.
What other forms of speech are they allowed to regulate?
All forms of speech in all 3 major languages. They even regulate all printed advertisements. All mass-printed materials need license from the KDN.
Are they allowed to censor certain types of political programs on television or radio?
Yes. All types of media (printed, music, video, etc) are being regulated.
What is the effect of censorship on individuals?
Almost none
about 3 years ago
Perhaps we need to clarify what an “Asian” democracy is (or sometimes, Asian “democracy”).
Stereotypically speaking, authority sets it up to try keep authority unwaveringly authoritative. Politicians and bureaucrats exploit and extrapolate from the traditional Asian values “respect your elders”, “respect your leaders”, and summarily, “respect hierarchy” to a governmental level, to bolster the security of their positions. Asians, if I may make more sweeping statements, know better than to want disproportionate power vested in the government (who are supposed to serve the people not vice versa), but what can you do when this hierarchy is rigidified by culture and history.
Ultimately, like minishorts said, it’s not the system, which is of lesser concern; it’s the who in the system, the agents of the system exploiting their powers. The folks in the censorship board censor what they want, and we know next to nothing of their methodology. They hide in a system apparently built to protect them — hey maybe it is the system! — but more to the point, it’s the irresponsibility that’s rife in the system.
There’s more to say, but I’m running out of steam and I’ve got work to do. Maybe later…
about 3 years ago
Censorship is terrible
about 3 years ago
Using security as an excuse to limit freedom is incredibly dangerous. I like the quote from Benjamin Franklin… “He who sacrifices freedom for security, deserves neither”. Lets take for example our Malaysian mentality which you’ve described as immature.
How do you expect Malaysians to mature when there is no freedom to mature in the first place? We mature by gaining knowledge which we obtain through media sources like books, newspapers, television etc. If these are blocked/controlled we will only get a single point of view. We will never learn how to handle or process opposing views, and thus never mature.
You won’t know fire is hot until you actually experience it yourself. So if you’ve never handled fire before, you will not know how dangerous it is and probably hurt/kill yourself. However if you’ve experienced it, you’ll know how to manage it to your benefit.
Having the freedom is incredibly important if you wish to advance, holding it back for “safety” reasons is ultimately detrimental. Imagine if humans avoided fire just because it could burn them.
about 3 years ago
i’m all for moderation in the sense of a system we believe in that works
managing anything at all (and i use this term loosely) is difficult as you have to deal with many different people with many different background, ideals and agendas. thus guidelines (which themselves are imperfect) are put in place.
back more towards the topic, book (media, etc) censorship should continue. what would be a good improvement though is more transparency. who decides on the censorship board? how do we know these individuals are trustworthy? by what standards are things judged upon? why is a publication being banned?
oh and proactiveness. dont lar until everytime jadi bubur before some action is taken…
about 3 years ago
Going back a bit…Midnite Lily said – stems from the system of so-called democracy from our colonial masters, the British.
I think it’s important to acknowledge the original context of the ISA. It (and its predecessor, the Emergency Regulations) wasn’t meant nor drafted to be used the way that it has since been. It was a response to the communist insurgency. The British draftsman who wrote it has come out time and again to put that on record. Tunku Abdul Rahman (Jeff, that’s our first Prime Minister) confirmed that many times over.
Moving on. As any political science student can tell you, the system we have in Malaysia is a democracy simply because of the exisitence of the eligibility to vote. The question then, is, what kind of democracy? But because philosophically there are too many accepted forms of democracy for us to properly discuss and understand outside of an academic forum, this is all I’ll say – tying censorship to just “democracy” without understanding the concept of “separation of powers” is simplistic and inaccurately skews the argument.
Separation of powers is vital in any form of democratic systems. The theory is – the state is separated into three branches – executive (that’s our Cabinet and PM), legislature (that’s Parliament) and the judiciary. Theoretically, the existence of one is to balance and check the powers of the other branches.
As Minishorts says. It’s not so much a problem with the system. Theoretically our system of government does consist of the three branches. The problem is, the people (one person in particular) in the system destroyed the checks and balances by severely curtailing the powers of the other branches.
Theoretically, it’s the Legislature that passes the laws. The Executive, through its policies that are executed by its agencies, put those laws into force. If those laws turn out to be oppresive, technically, the Man-on-the-Street’s remedy is to seek redress from the Judiciary, or to organise themselves and lobby the Executive through its representatives in Parliament.
The system is there. How it works depends largely on the people in positions of power in those institutions.
As Jeff from LA said –
When you have a government that can control speech, they can also control who gets elected and who runs things and make sure that things do not change over time or that they do not lose power. Now that doesn’t mean that free speech is a perfect cure. Unfortunately, in America, we have seen that arrogant and corrupt politicians have the opportunity to get into power. However, because we have free speech, we at least have a better chance to understand how bad the problem is and hopefully will do our part to fix it.
Exactly. They have free speech because their judiciary has remained relatively unfettered and their parliamentary equivalent, ie Congress, still retains the element of balance btwn political parties. This allows their media to operate in a much more satisfactory way than ours does (not saying that American media isn’t a governmental mouthpiece, but the point is that the alternative point of view is allowed to exist).
Given that our Parliament has no credible political balance, the only hope for a liberal media is to have a credible judiciary; to pin our hopes on the Rule of Law. Unfortunately, we no longer have that either. Because a small number of people in the top echelons of power have messed with the system, to make it their own.
Most Malaysians, particularly those under 35 don’t realise it, but the worst thing to happen that allowed the state of affairs to become this way, was the judicial crisis in 1988, when those judges were sacked. Not the crackdown on reformasi, not enforcement of the ISA.
Censorship could have been fought, in the courts of law. But with the Judiciary relatively compliant to the Executive’s wishes over the last 20 years, it’s no wonder we’re in the state we’re in.
With this endemic rot in the system, it’s no wonder that the people in power in the governmental agencies have also absorbed the immaturity of thought into their bones. Stupidity is contagious.
Result?
Things like this stupid banned-book list.
‘Stupidity is contagious’. Now that’s a tagline worth remembering.
about 3 years ago
Spot, I think you bring up an interesting issue, i.e. you refer to a crackdown on judges and the judiciary in 1988. Can you or anyone else describe to me what the crackdown entailed and how the judges were sacked? That would definitely seem to be a strong reason why the executive branch in Malaysia has managed to develop and exert such great power and influence.
To Minishorts, I apologize for continuing this debate, but appreciate your patience. I have a great deal of interest in comparative legal systems due to my current status as a law student.
about 3 years ago
Jeff – Oh you’re a law student. That explains the pattern of thought in your comments.
If you have access to an academic library, try to get your hands on a book by Harold Crouch titled “Government and Society in Malaysia”. It gives an excellent account of the whole constitutional crisis of 1987-88.
From my possibly unreliable memory, the story in brief is as follows.
It started with the UMNO (that’s the dominant party in our ruling coalition) elections in 1987. The then Prime Minister was challenged for the presidency (the mandate of Malaysia’s PM derives from this position). On the ground, it seemed that the challenger had won. But officially, it was announced that the PM had won. A lawsuit was filed by the loser’s supporters to challenge the validity of the elections on the basis that several unregistered branches had sent delegates to vote.
Instead of focussing on the issue of validity of elections, the Judge dismissed the suit and declared UMNO as an unlawful society because of those unregistered branches. That judge has since gone on record to say that his hand was forced.
The former PM likes to use the deregistration of the old UMNO as an example of the existence of an independent judiciary. The fact is (as most laypeople don’t realise), the deregistration was to his benefit because if the election had been invalidated, it was uncertain whether or not he could win in a fresh election.
He then took the opportunity to form a new UMNO, purged of the dissenters.
While that was happening, the Supreme Court had been actively hearing other suits that resulted in declaring some Government actions invalid. It overturned the ban on certain publications and the arbitrary revocation of a journalist’s work permit.
The Government then introduced sweeping bills to Parliament which would have severely curtail the judiciary’s powers.
The Lord President of the Supreme Court, Tun Salleh Abbas convened a meeting with his brother judges and they sent a private protest letter to the King (malaysia is a constitutional monarchy).
The PM then accused the Lord President of misconduct and set up a tribunal to consider suspension of the LP. THe LP filed a suit to challenge the validity of the tribunal, which entitled him to seek an injunction to halt the tribunal’s proceedings until his suit was head in court.
Five supreme court judges convened an emergency hearing and granted the LP his injunction. The five were suspended by the government.
The tribunal proceeded (without a judicial enquiry into the illegality of its set-up) and the LP was sacked from office.
And it was all downhill from there. You’d be hard pressed to find any judgement thereafter that wasnt in favour of the government.
Sorry Minishorts, if this is going off tangent. I think ppl ought to know though, this particular aspect of our country’s political history, before they form opinions on things like freedom of speech.
The Judiciary is technically the place to seek redress against an unjust law, on the basis of being against constitutional rights. BUt you need a judiciary willing to hear you, with integrity intact.
about 3 years ago
Thanks for responding, Spot. Hmm, it seems truly tragic that politicians were allowed to sack the judges without proper cause. A strong judiciary is a vital element for any society to have great individual freedoms. Hopefully, things have changed significantly from that time.
about 3 years ago
Jeff from LA: Some recent newspaper report on the 1988 crises
http://miscpage.blogsome.com/2006/09/27/salleh-abas-gives-five-reasons-to-reopen-case/
http://miscpage.blogsome.com/2006/09/27/dr-m-yes-i-told-salleh-to-go/
http://miscpage.blogsome.com/2006/09/27/nazri-says-there-is-no-case-for-review/
about 3 years ago
Thanks, Wormie.