COMMENT | When Gobind Singh Deo says he is considering creating legislation that takes action against news portal operators who do not take action against readers who leave comments “that touch on racial, religious and royal institution sensitivities,” what he is doing is curtailing free speech in Malaysia.

Whenever political operatives talk about the sensitivities which revolve around the 3 “Rs,” I always wonder why they do not talk about the big “G” – gender. What about the misogynistic rhetoric in the comments sections, especially against women when they offer outlier views?

Remember when Maryam Lee was viciously attacked for her role in the Undirosak movement? Empower (an NGO) summed up the situation: “Instead of demonstrating maturity when engaging in the discourse, many supporters of the opposition resorted to unwarranted sexist, misogynist and extremist harassment against Maryam, and targeted their attacks solely at body shaming and (at) her identity as a young woman.

“Many of these attackers have accessed, taken and used her pictures without Maryam’s knowledge and consent. They further manipulated and/or morphed her photographic images into sexually explicit ones. “These images are accompanied by extremely demeaning and sexualised insults and name-calling.”

My take on those cowardly attacks on Maryam Lee (photo, below): “Nearly every opposition personality laments the fact that the opposition is under attack by the establishment propaganda instruments, but ignore the lies and online abuse committed by their supporters. This is a reckless omission because (1) this is reflective of the kind of Malaysia they want to create and the people who support them; and (2) the racist comments – not so much the misogynist comments – are used by the establishment to demonstrate the hypocrisy and race hate of the opposition.”

There is censorship in Malaysia. The press practises self-censorship when it comes to news stories and certain opinions. There are laws that restrict free speech. What we are talking about here is the Harapan regime's attempt to silence the average citizen from expressing his or her perspective as it relates directly to news reports. Even when it comes to certain social media posting – Facebook, Instagram, etc – this is not the same as news stories and the reception it gets from the subscribers of news portals.

Some of these comments are bigoted, racist, lies and not only contribute but sustain the toxicity in the national discourse. I understand why some people would be offended by the speech in comment sections of news stories. Indeed, many news portals have their criteria as to what kind of speech should be restricted. There are many who would argue – considering the vile rhetoric - that this is not enough.

Claiming to want to instil responsibility by holding news portals responsible for what happens in the comment section is mendacious. Comments sections, by nature, are reactionary. When people read the toxic things political and religious operatives say, they will react. Reacting even if it means being racist or bigoted, unfortunately, is a legitimate, if morally reprehensible (not to mention hypocritical), form of expression.

When Lim Kit Siang (photo, above) says something like this, for instance - “If Malaysians can develop a healthy scepticism of what they receive on the social media and check their veracity before they share it with others, it will be a big step to check the abuses of social media in the country” - he is missing the point.

The reality is that toxic material, and this includes lies and “fake news,” are intentionally passed around by partisans, even though they know the veracity is suspect. The same reasoning applies to comments in the comment sections. Anonymity, often times, brings out the worst in people. In fact, there are subscribers who make toxic posts on news stories, and generally behave as if the comment section is their own personal venting mechanism for the apparent discrimination they face from a system they keep voting for.
Some people have questioned how Harapan is going to police the comment sections and social media when it comes to this issue?

They do not have to. What they can do is make enough examples of individuals who go against this supposed law, expand the type of comments the state finds unacceptable and Malaysians will fall into line. Furthermore, news portals will, on their own initiative, crack down on what they think the state finds offensive, and subscribers would be penalised, based on the fear of repercussions from the state.

So, when Gobind says he is considering legislation to penalise news portals that allow certain comments to pass, some people think this is a good thing. This is a bipartisan issue because both camps think their speech would be protected and the other side censured.

How are news portals going to determine which comments from readers need to be censored? Outright racists and bigoted comments are easy to spot and I suppose one could make the case – I would not – that they need to be censored, but what of comments which make people uncomfortable and, hence, are termed as inciting racial or religious discord? How are news portals supposed to police these types of comments?

Have you noticed that whenever political operatives say they have received numerous complaints on an issue like this, for instance, they never give examples as to what constitutes censure-worthy speech It is always in the abstract.

Is this any reason to censure such speech? This is a country where race and religion for the majority community are not mutually exclusive. This is a country where some minorities claim they are living in an apartheid system. This is a country where the ruling coalition makes the claim that it needs a race-based party to win elections.