This is not about “cowardice” but rather how the state wants citizens to practise self-censorship. Khairy knows this. Journalists know this, and you better believe that academics know this.

International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) academic Syaza Shukri said, “Even something minor, perhaps just an objective question that we genuinely want to understand, or maybe even a complaint from outside, can be turned into a 3R (race, religion, and royalty) issue.”

Actually, her statement echoes what PKR MP Hassan Abdul Karim had lamented, that the 3R ban is masking the systemic dysfunction when it comes to the kind of crony capitalists orbiting Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.

“These people seem to enjoy immunity and cannot be touched due to the 3R ban,” Hassan reportedly said.

Every policy decision is based on the 3Rs; it is just that people who disagree with the 3Rs should not talk about it.

From Anwar to PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang, political operatives using the 3Rs for political purposes are not sanctioned by the state.

But if you are the unlucky dissenter who points out that the 3Rs are part of the problem, then the state comes down on you like a ton of bricks.

Impractical, difficult to monitor

Look, all governments want the rakyat to practise self-censorship. Two years ago, as reported in the press, Fahmi Fadzil “…told participants to behave themselves, warning that they were being ‘monitored by authorities’ and may be visited by the police”.

When Fahmi claimed that it was a miscommunication about watching your words and being monitored by the authorities, National Human Rights Society (Hakam) president M Ramachelvam said: “As the communications and digital minister, he should have used his position to answer the comments left by viewers rather than to say the authorities will come after them.

“Threats by government ministers against freedom of expression leave a negative perception of the government (which has a duty) to uphold this fundamental constitutional right guaranteed to citizens.”

And all this is not new. Fahmi is just echoing what then-communications and multimedia minister Salleh Said Keruak said nearly a decade ago.

“It is impractical and difficult to monitor or control a user’s access to the massive amount of content found online. So, it is left to us, the user, to exercise self-censorship and to verify all news shared over our social media feeds.”

At one time, legacy media practised self-censorship as some sort of misguided idea of nation-building - at least, that’s what they told us. Indeed, all instruments of colonial legislation were and are used to stifle every facet of Malaysian public life.

Former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad once said, "When I was the prime minister, there was press freedom, but it is the media itself who did self-censorship, as if they didn't want to hurt leaders' feelings. This is the habit that we have in Malaysia.”

Which sounds civilised, as if the media were not operating under the possibility of the Internal Security Act or a history of state intervention into the so-called “Fourth Estate”.

Insidious kind of censorship

Self-censorship is the most insidious kind of censorship, because its coerciveness becomes voluntary - this is how we become complicit in our own subjugation.

Then again, self-censorship has a karma-like effect - especially here in Malaysia.

This is best illustrated when Mahathir bemoaned the fact that, “Soon after (Abdullah Ahmad Badawi took over as PM), I was cut off from the press... reporters were not allowed to interview me... and they were not allowed to print anything I said.”

Remember the so-called media blackout on the e-hailing driver episode? Deputy Communications Minister Teo Nie Ching played coy about self-censorship by some of the media, “It (ordering media to censor) never happens on my level. I never heard about the so-called government orders.”

Apparently, it was all “internal decisions”.

Gerakan Media Merdeka (Geramm) spokesperson Radzi Razak had the perfect response when asked by Malaysiakini about Teo’s comment.

“Let’s not pretend that there are no ‘friendly texts or calls’ to the editors from someone in the office of the powers that be. Let’s not pretend writers and publishers are not being ‘gently’ reminded of how a story or headline should be written by someone not in the industry.”

No sanctions

But here is the important part. Self-censorship only extends to speech and ideas that the state deems offensive. Ideas that seek to reinforce the narrative of racial and religious superiority are enabled by the state.

This means that politicians, preachers, and academics who conform to hegemonic ideas or religion and race are free to say what they want, and there are no sanctions by the state.

Take this PAS-led, Umno-endorsed Daulat Tuanku rally. Keep in mind that PAS has gone against the diktats of the Selangor sultan and Umno over the decades, and has curtailed the power of the royalty.

But of course, this kind of hypocrisy is par for the course for these types of religious people. The fact that the mainstream Malay establishment and the royal institution say nothing about this hypocrisy should tell rational people what this game is all about.

Meanwhile, progressive voices and those who seek to nurture democratic or secular values are punished by the state, and more often than not. resort to self-censorship for personal and economic safety.

It is easy to be brave when you have the protection of the state.