PM Warns Bloggers

The Star Reported:Bloggers, Beware!

PM said: Those who spread untruths and slander on the Internet will be detained.

If information in blogs, websites and online portals were incorrect, bordered on slander, caused disturbance or compelled the public to lose faith in the nation’s economic policies, their authors would be detained for investigation, said Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

“We cannot allow such matters to flow through uncontrolled,” Pak Lah said.

“They say all kinds of things, make all kinds of dubious claims. We cannot allow them to abuse the freedom earned under the media. If left alone, they can say or pass on all kinds of things.”

“If they abuse the freedom – more than the present freedom given without any restriction – we cannot allow it,” Abdullah declared.

“Where in the world is there such a freedom, where one can freely spread incorrect information and slander without having to own up to it?”

Asked if he was calling for a control mechanism, Abdullah said he would leave it to the police to investigate first.

NST posted: Beware, Those spreading malicious comments and rumours can be detained and their websites or blogs investigated.

Abdullah said the Government would closely monitor the content of Internet websites and blogs that published seditious material.

Abdullah added that the sort of liberty found in blogs and websites had exceeded the freedom given to the Malaysian media.

"These people are practising the sort of freedom where they spread lies if they felt like doing so. How can we have that? Where can you find that sort of freedom in the world?" he asked.

Abdullah was responding to Information Minister Datuk Zainuddin Maidin’s call yesterday for control over the Internet.

Zainuddin had said that the Internet was sometimes used to spread allegations that threatened national security and racial harmony as some of the contents touched on Islam and Malay rights.

It's now clear that Pak Lah is getting jittery over the current political environment. The clouds are gathering and the thunders are striking ahead of lightning. However, it does seem that the greatest threat is posed by the presence of his political nemesis.

The question arise is the definition of "allegations that threatened national security and racial harmony" and contents that "touched" on Islam and Malay Rights. What about minority rights and about contents that touched on other religion? If someone is saying that he has a right under the constitution to practice another religion and that he is determined to defend his right, would it be construed as malicious and threatening to Islam and Malay Rights?

Another factor is the concern that certain privileges provided within the current system had been construed as Rights, which in effect is about affirmative policies intended to assist the development and eradication of poverty. However, these policies had been "blurred" and "abused" to the extent that those "elected" to benefit are not the poor or destitute, but are millionaires and who strives to become billionaires with the assistance of the coterie. If this was highlighted in the Net, would be bloggers be construed to be spreading allegations and causing disturbance or compelling the public to lose faith in the nation’s economic policies?

The pradoxical position is that what the public hear or information transmitted and relayed, may be, res gestae at times or hearsay on other times, and until some form of investigation had been carried out, the content cannot be validated.

At such, it will posed another hypothesis: Unless it is clear and there is unequivocal evidence, (which is made onerous) it has been made easy for those in power and influence (and with the "right connections")to pilfer from the system, for the enforcement and control system itself has been tempered to the extent of making it almost impossible to track the pilferage.

In other words, are we making it hard and protractive for information to flow such that it becomes difficult for the public to be able to know of the happenings, and at the same time, it would have provided necessary information for the proper enforcement agencies to ponder over the abuses and consider taking necessary actions?

Are we making it easy for the system managers and executives to pilfer from the system?

Take an example: Someone would have videoed a scene where a teacher was abusing a student and publish it on the Net. Would that video be construed as an allegation with malicious intent, for under the law, a person is innocent until proven guilty. That teacher could have acted to prevent some incident of bad behavior or acts, or alternatively, he/she may be a saddist, terrorising some students.

Take another example: If a group of educationist or NGOs had procured the necessary permits to gather in a hotel to discuss certain issues pertaining to the rights enunciated and provided under the constitution, the subject topic would certainly have some sensitiveness, for it may not be intended to challenge others rights but inherently would have some impact and lead to certain consequences that may indirectly challenges certain doctrines and beliefs. Would this tantamount to spreading allegations that threatened national security and racial harmony as some of the contents touched on Islam and Malay rights? What about those who elected to suppress the forum? The paradoxicality is that those who demonstrated outside the recent Article 11 forum did not have permit to gather and their acts are illegal while those who gathered at the Forum had the necessary permit to do so. However, the Forum was directed to be called off by the authorities for the reason that it was the only way to stop the mob reacting negatively or acting criminally. Public perception is that the enforcers have to give in to the forces of the mobs.

Another incident is the Fracas at UPM. The acts by some of the students does tantamount to harrassments and sexual harrassments, and harrassments of the minorities. That incident is of public interest and concerns. The authorities, by the rule of law and mandated with the responsibility to protect civil rights, were (mandated) to act accordingly to indict the wrong doers and ensure justice and fairness prevails and to ensure the application and sustainment of the rule of law in this country. Interestingly, the minister choose to delegate his responsibility to his subordinate at the university and the incident was shoved beneath the dark hades. As a sandiwara, two students was made to shake hands.

I am supportive of the Prime Minister call to bloggers to write responsibly and not to slander (utterance of defamatory representations) or to write libellously (a written defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression and published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt, the publication of which are either blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures and is an act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel).

The blogshpere is exposed to such abuses and without some form of control mechanism, it can lead to disasters and disharmony and ultimately, clashes of civilisation. However, the enforcers and the executives must not be given wide and arbitrary powers to act to suppress freedom and individual liberties. Information, and truthful information may lead to the public losing faith in the nation’s economic policies which, accordingly would be construed as malicious and subject the author to indictment. It should only be information which are untruthful and are lies that are to be construed as malicious (i.e. desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another or intended to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse) or malevolent (i.e. having, showing, or arising from intense vicious ill will, spite, or hatred which are harmful or evil ) that should be subjected to civil actions.

However, the current system lacks effectiveness and efficiencies to control and monitor and there are elements of cronism and kelptorism. The system has so far instil fears and concoct threats as a means to an end. It should be affirmative and proactive as to bring about cooperation of the masses and to ensure peace and harmony as the means to an end. The critical success factors rested with the executives and ministerial responsibilities.

The current situation is not yet disasterous and is amenable. Malaysia does have a strong social fabric and racial harmony exists and thrives. However, proacts and intelligible acts are required to sustain and to further enhance the development of social justice and to entrench the rule of law. The mobs must be eradicated and the politicians must be re-educated. Barisan Nasional can do this by a wholesale assimilation of all the communal political parties within into one muti-racial integrated political party (not a contextual muti-racial party)so as to forward a new and truly one and only Malaysian Malaysia. Is it far-fetch? I believe Pak Lah can do it if wanted. [period].