ADVERTISEMENT
Inciting hatred under freedom of expression
Published on: Sunday, March 03, 2024
By: Azam Aris
Text Size:
“Don’t suppress free speech. I disagree with what was said but I will defend his or her right to say what he or she wants to say. Freedom of speech and expression is the foundation of democracy — take it away and democracy will crumble.”
Yes, freedom of speech and expression is an ideal social norm, provided that everyone exercises it responsibly. It does not mean that one is free to incite hate and spread fake news that could ignite racial or religious conflict.
Different countries will have different standards, with the Western world insisting that their version is the best. For instance, in the case of Scandinavian governments, it is all right to burn the Quran in protest despite strong objections from Muslim countries and communities.
But here in Malaysia, which has a history of racial rioting, our right to freedom of expression should take into account our multi-cultural and multi-religious context. We must also be guided by a sense of responsibility.
With six states having undergone elections on Aug 12, distorted racial and religious issues were on the rise again and being peddled to win votes.
During campaigns, the biggest culprits are the politicians and their cybertroopers. Never mind if unity is at stake, just do whatever you need to win the votes. After the elections, they say fences can be mended again.
There are laws to charge those who incite hatred and spread fake news. At the forefront is the dreaded Sedition Act 1948, which carries fines and jail terms, but critics often argue that it can be abused by the government of the day to suppress the discussion of matters that are unfavourable to the people in power.
The current government is also pushing for new legislation against those who stir up communal and religious tensions by playing up the issues of race, religion and royalty.
As a journalist, I am all for freedom of speech but as someone who has only worked in the traditional mainstream media, the freedom to write, for example, must always come with a responsibility to ensure that the facts are checked and double-checked. The story must be fair and balanced and views must always sought from different sides. This, obviously, takes time.
Newspapers might be biased — for example, on certain policies — towards the government of the day, but still, the accuracy of information is of utmost importance. Information that is found to be not true upon checking will never be disseminated.
But today, in the world of the internet and social media, for news and information dissemination, speed is of the essence, and the accuracy of facts is neglected in a race for clicks. So much so that the mainstream media, because of the need to check and double-check their facts before publication, are losing the race, which has cost them a lot of readers and viewers.
So, in this new age of information, the gates are open for anyone to operate via international social media platforms, which are proponents of freedom of speech, and which are almost always not responsible for the accuracy of the contents posted. As a result, disinformation and incitement have become part of their mainstream content.
In their quest for political dominance, the politicians and cybertroopers are taking advantage of the platforms’ lax check and balance mechanism, notably in the heat of election campaigns. Fearmongering, slander and distortions are back, in the name of freedom of speech.
In social media, where one can hide behind nicknames and be anonymous, and use accounts managed by administrators, the rule seems to be that it is all right to spread lies or distort the facts.
Depending on the reactions to the clickbait postings, content generators can change their tone quickly. If it is not in their favour, they can immediately issue an apology or take down the posting.
Maybe this is the name of the media game today but as a journalist, it is sad to see that this sort of news has become mainstream. Fake and sensationalised news is more believable than news that is accurate.
It is the right of politicians to present their views the way they see things in order to win votes, but some of these arguments can be deemed irresponsible, and do not benefit the nation but only cause further divisiveness within the different communities.
The things that I detest most currently are the fearmongering methods of insisting that the Malays are losing power and control of parliament or that the government is dominated by the kafir harbi or non-Muslim infidels who are supposed not to have the interest of the nation at heart. Never mind that they are minorities in both institutions.
When dwelling on what is meant by losing power, these politicians are fond of citing the fate of the Malays/Muslims in Singapore and Pattani (Southern Thailand), referring to their isolation in politics and on the economic front. They warn that the same fate can happen to the Malays here.
In Singapore and Thailand, the Malays are a minority and in the respective countries’ modern histories, they had never been in power.
In Malaysia, the Malays have always been in power and because they are the majority of the population, which could touch 70pc soon, and with the constitutional monarchy system in place and the position of Islam well protected by the constitution, they will continue to remain in power.
So, the fate of the Malay/Muslim community in this country is always in their own hands. The question Malay/Muslim voters should ask during elections — including those controlled by PAS-led Perikatan Nasional in Kedah and the super Malay majority states of Kelantan and Terengganu — is what the Malay/Muslim leaders have done to uplift their socioeconomic status when they were in power? Why continue to blame the non-Muslims?
Expect these kinds of fearmongering arguments to continue with vigour and overshadow the discussion of what politicians should do to uplift the socioeconomic status of the community and states.
Expecting fake news and slander to dominate election campaigns, the Friday sermon in Selangor on July 21, titled “The Sin of Backbiting and Cursing”, reminded Muslims that “Islam greatly proritises harmonious living with the society and exhorts its adherents to always be kind to fellow Muslims and remain tolerant to non-Muslims according to the stipulations, limitations and akhlaaq (character) allowed in Islam.”
The Quran says, “O you who have believed, let not a people ridicule (another) people, perhaps they may be better than them, nor let the women ridicule (other) women, perhaps they may be better than them. And do not insult one another and do not call each other by (offensive) nicknames.
Wretched is the name of disobedience after (one’s) faith. And whoever does not repent — then it is those who are the wrongdoers.” (Verse 11, Surah Al-Hujuraat)
The sermon also mentioned a hadith — sayings of Prophet Muhammad — as narrated by Hudhayfah Al Yaman, that “The tale-bearers shall not enter Paradise”.
The sermon added that “for candidates who will become leaders, especially Muslim leaders, Islam has provided guidance and reminds its leaders not to abuse their position, rank and authority for self-interest or the interest of certain groups.
When the Muslim leaders no longer possess amanah (trustworthiness) and honesty, then the society that they lead becomes destroyed, causing non-Muslims to look down upon Muslim leaders.”
While in the heat of campaigns, two recent events struck me as indications that Malaysia still has the potential to be an exemplary, united and harmonious multiracial, multicultural and multireligious nation.
One was the event to celebrate the nation’s second deputy prime minister Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman’s vision and contribution to national unity. Ismail was a Malay nationalist of high integrity who cared about his community but at the same time always had the interest of multicultural Malaysia at heart. Ismail passed away 50 years ago.
The second is related to Malay lawyer Ahmad Zaharil Muhaiyar, whose story and video of helping an Indian family has gone viral. In 1998, he had helped an Indian mother who was handcuffed and waiting to be charged for stealing a pencil box at a supermarket. She could not afford the item but wanted to give it as a present to her son, as she had promised to do if he became the top student in his class.
Zaharil represented her after getting confirmation from the school that the boy who was in Year 4 was indeed the top student, and managed to get the magistrate to discharge her on a bond of good behaviour.
In 2018, Zaharil was approached by a man on the court premises. The latter told him that his mother, who had seen Zaharil on TV, recognised him as the lawyer who had rescued her years ago. The boy who got the stolen pencil box was now a lawyer himself.
Zaharil was overwhelmed by emotion and said: “I almost fainted when he told me who he was. It was heartwarming and one of the happiest moments in my life. We proceeded to visit his mother. Since (the meeting) we have become close. He is like a son to me. We would visit each other during Deepavali and Hari Raya.”
“I helped because she is a fellow Malaysian. Here in Malaysia, despite our diverse backgrounds, our differences are minute but we have similarities. We can live in harmony as one big family.”
A harmonious multicultural nation or one that wants to ensure Malay/Muslim supremacy — which Malaysia do you prefer?
Azam Aris is an editor emeritus at The Edge, where this appeared.
- The views expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of the Daily Express.
- If you have something to share, write to us at: [email protected]
ADVERTISEMENT
