Blog

Let us start by calling a spade a spade. The freedom of speech in Malaysia is not and has never truly been ‘free’. Article 10 of the Federal constitution guarantees our right as citizens to freedom of expression, with the caveat that it does not thread between the lines of hate speech. Exploiting these vaguely defined limitations, authorities have been using intimidation of prosecution as an instrument to silence human rights advocates who challenge the government.

Is this necessarily a bad thing?

Free discourse is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy but yet, we still see countries with mature democracies struggling to get a grasp of this conundrum. The simple argument says restricting free speech squashes dissent in the country, resulting in a more stable political landscape. As such, it could lead to more social harmony. However, this is untrue. Most countries with strict dampers on free speech propagate the rise of a corrupted and authoritarian government. In turn, dissatisfied citizens eventually take to the streets to protest.

So, where do we draw the line?

Most countries in the world grant free speech to its citizens, and take a further step to formally recognize it by including it in their constitution. However, the extent to which this freedom is upheld greatly varies between nations. When we put our beloved Malaysia up for comparison, it seems clear that if you view freedom of speech as a spectrum, our country would be at neither of the extreme ends of it.  

The struggle of a centrist nation?

Malaysia has always stood at the middle of many spectrums – including the free expression index. As a result, we tend to witness inner conflicts within the people who on one hand believes that we should impose stricter regulations to prevent incidents such as the mural vandalism in Shah Alam and the ‘Rebirth’ book which allegedly insulted Malaysia’s coat of arms. 

On the other hand, the number of activists speaking up on contemporary issues such as child marriage, women rights and press freedom has burgeoned in the past decade. One issue that has struck a dilemma in the lives of Malaysians is the recent cabinet announcement on how all social media users are obliged to obtain a license under the FINAS Act 1981 (Act 224) before posting any content online. Like many other issues before this, this policy witnessed a U-turn in a struggle for Malaysia to remain a centrist nation. 

Are we comfortable where we are now?

We love the idea of complete freedom from government censorship but in the state that our society is in currently, we frankly might not be able to handle it. On the flip side, nobody should stay silent when their rights have been deliberately breached. As the banter “everything in moderation” goes, how much freedom is deemed too much? 

When given the free reign to express ourselves, it is prone to abuse resulting in breaching peace or causing violence. Some mistaken freedom of speech with a license to speak with impunity- freedom from the consequences of that expression. 

In the wake of social media, it is apparent that speech has never been more free. This poses as a double edged sword that normalised the silencing of minorities, further fueling hate speech which stirs an age-old debate regarding whether public authorities should loosen or tighten the reins regarding this freedom. 

As the next generation of leaders, we should shift the paradigm of this debate to effectively regulate violence and hatred to prevent this being a prominent feature in society. A safe environment should be cultivated for anybody wanting to speak out regardless of race, religion or gender. 

In light of recent events, we should also take control of our freedom or privilege to fight for what is right- particularly for those who are unable to fight for themselves. Perhaps the essence of it could be summarised in a quote by our friendly neighbourhood spiderman which goes along the lines of  “With great power comes great responsibility”. This quote then beckons the question, what will you do with that responsibility?