Mediaboss Marketing

Are we allowed to have ideas and opinions? Or must they be state-endorsed to be valid?

COMMENT

The rise of social media has been uneasy in more ways than one. From privacy concerns to ethics, there are many shades of gray that need to be explored before we truly come to understand and integrate it in our daily lives. One such complication is very prominent here in Malaysia freedom of speech in a semi-democratic society.

Autocratic regimes such as China have long been wary of social media, a useful tool for organising and disseminating information, but one that could spread news of a governments missteps within seconds of their happening.

China has implemented a set of tools to curb free speech as much as possible while still being able to dubiously claim democracy, such as having proprietary social media platforms more readily available than Facebook or Twitter. But wily Internet users have devised their own workarounds to deliver news to each other on government misdeeds. However, if discovered, they can be arbitrarily taken from their homes and locked up, beaten and abused by secret police, and more. Sounds like a familiar story, really.

Indeed, Chinas efforts have not escaped the sight of our esteemed ruling government of the day. Facebook and Twitter have been bugbears for our politicians, as the slightest gaffe is magnified under the spotlight of social media, and free speech runs rampant in forums, without a way for the government to hold it in check. This is mostly due to guarantees made by Mahathir Mohamad when he was the Prime Minister, that is that the Internet would be unrestricted in Malaysia.

Observe these delicate, probing remarks to elicit a response on the idea of banning Facebook:

The greatest threat so far, however, has been the use of the colonial-era law, the Sedition Act, to silence dissent under the guise of national security. The charges against Adam Adli, Safwan Anang, N. Surendran, Tian Chua, David Orok, Azmi Sharom, Susan Loone and more were called a fear-instilling tactic by Phil Robertson of Human Rights Watch. No one is safe from the long arm of the Sedition Act.

A score of people have been charged under the act since August, leading even the United Nations to make a statement. We are concerned about the recent increase in the use of the Sedition Act 1948 to arrest and prosecute people for their peaceful expression of opinion in Malaysia, said the spokesman for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Rupert Colville. We call on the government to quickly initiate a promised review of the act and to repeal or amend it in line with its international human rights obligations.

But what, dear reader, does all this mean for you and I?

Read the original:
Social media and the age of sedition