Center for Liberal Leadership

By K.J. John
What is responsible citizenship within the context of an emerging new world order, defined more by media and virtual realities than by the real world of material and earthly realities? But, first some context definitions from the title of the book Asian Cyberactivism: Freedom of Expression and Media Censorship.

First, what is Asia? Where is Asia in our civilisational past? Who is Asia today? What is the role of Asia in the Global Village of the future?

To me, Asia is everyplace East of Istanbul; that we traditionally have called the Orient. I suppose the one unique and common integrating feature for my definition of Asia is that, in such an Asia, the primary building block or unit of analysis for societies is the group and not yet too prominently “the individual.” The individual, or other modern ideas and ideals about political self-expression; whether we call it democracy, or individual freedoms of human rights, are still being only slowly assimilated into the cultural and local contexts of Asia. Some nation states have adopted more of it than others, but still the primacy of the whole always prevails over that of the individual.

Second, the concept of Cyberactivism as a compound word. The virtual or cyber world is still an anathema to much of the current “real world.” Most have not yet fully understood that the virtual is also real; of bits and bytes and that both e-commerce or e-democracy is and will be as real as traditional face-to-face business or ballot-box democracy. In fact, even our own Dewan Bahasa has not fully understood the concept of the “virtual” – since they translate into Bahasa Melayu using the Sanskrit word “maya” which is conceptually an “illusion” and therefore not materially real, in terms of physics. I hope their metaphysics is better than mine! I could however propose “cyber” as a better Malay translation from the Greek root, “kubernetes” (steersman).

Leaving the cyberworld, the concept of activism with the root concept of an actor and his/her responsible, political and individual “actions of intervention” (what we call activism) is a relatively new idea in Asia. In much of Asia, the greater concept of systemic harmony and stability in society is still a pre-ordinate value over that of the one political actor and his individual views! Therefore, activism of any form whether cyber or otherwise will always remain limited to “activism within the larger context and traditional constraints of a feudal society and hierarchical forms of control and compliance.” The authors in fact give many real examples of this in their book. Necessarily, until we become an organically developed society, Hegel’s dialectic clash of thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis will remain a threat to such systemic harmony, when defined by powers that be.

In the past such roles of activism were limited to court jesters or other traditional actors, that is, those who would use their “formal role” to assume an “informal role” for activism and change. Such “activists” and their limited roles are registered as “change-agents” in literature, art, or even the scriptures of the East. But, they remained the “squeaky wheels” who were “tolerated” rather than listened to. They needed no real “fixing” as they remained small in numbers. Cyberactivism however is a whole new value proposition, since both the technology and the content or the messages are beyond “control” or “moderation” by the powers that be. Therefore, the new activism via the net is totally new and should lead to various and new reactions.

The third key set of ideas; of freedom of expression and media censorship forms the real text of the book’s thesis. It creates a tension between the so-called “good of the whole” and the “freedom of the individual.” This tension between freedom and control is a relatively new ideal in the history of the world. It is only a post-enlightenment ideal begun by Renesis Descartes and Martin Luther via his 99 theses, and therefore very new to much of Asia. It relates to the breakdown of traditional feudal systems of power and control and the emergence of the concept of the “power of the people” first unleashed via the French Revolution. But, people power can also be chaotic and anarchic, almost always. Both, the French and Iranian revolutions did cause pain and trauma. In fact we notice that even Indonesia has still to “recover from their chaotic people power out of the Suharto regime.”

The tension between new ideas and ideals; of freedoms of expression via the internet and other Information Communication Technologies which are fundamentally and radically democratising, and the need for order and harmony within the context of transition and change is therefore the thesis of the book. Steven Gan, James Gomez and Uwe Johannen have done an excellent job of providing a baseline sketch of the who, what, when, where, why and how of this tension. I must say that two of the authors coming from Singapore and Malaysia are brave and courageous responsible media actors. Nonetheless, for all of us who pretend to be such “emcouraged actors,” we must remember that our facts and figures must tell their own stories. So, if our thesis is a well researched one, it will stand the test of time and circumstances. And, as all scriptures declare, good seeds grow into trees which bear good fruits.

Having defined both the context and the text of the book, allow me to develop my proposition of what I think lies ahead and whether cyberactivism will change and redefine the nature of politics in much of Asia.

Information and Communication Technologies especially driven by internet is bringing about fundamental change in Asia. The book gives some clear evidences of how this has already happened and will continue to happen. Therefore, governments of Asia are better-off dealing with the new phenomenon rather than denying it.

But, to make my case in our context, Malaysia can be cited as one good example for a case-study of such change and tension. The MSC and Malaysia’s IT Agenda were launched way back in 1996 in anticipation of the information age. In fact, in the third National IT Council, the then Permanent Secretary, Tengku Datuk Dr Mohd Azzman Shariffadeen proposed to the then Chairman that the NITC must include NGOs; or the third sector, precisely because of the fundamental and radical effects of future cyberactivism. Although originally viewed as a “radical idea,” the then Prime Minister Dr Mahathir accepted and implemented that idea.

Such proactive recognition and anticipation of new realities is a clear way to stay ahead. But, is that alone enough?

An information society should also become an informated one; one in which information and knowledge become the rational sources for policy formulation, decision-making, and subsequently media pronouncements, or what historically is called developmental journalism.

How then does one encourage the growth and development of an informated society in Asia, especially within the new context of Cyberactivism? That is a critical question for all of us to ponder today, in the light of the book launch.

Let me now take a real case-in-point. The birth and rise of Malaysiakini as an alternative voice of some informated (and, opinionated) members of Malaysian society since the political fall out of 1999 cannot be denied. The question for all of us is, is this good or bad for a society like Malaysia whose ambition is to become a developed society by 2020?

Any developed society must at least be an informated one, if not a knowledge-based one. This only means that there must always be room for rational dialogue based on the real facts and truth. Reasonable arguments and dialogue can and should be entertained without emotional outbursts. Within such an assumption, one can propose that Malaysiakini can and should become a valid and plausible framework for an alternative dialogue other than that of the mainstream media. But, is it also then legitimate that the media owners still have to abide by the rules and regulations currently in force in Malaysia? Since our government has promised that there will be no media censorship under the MSC Bill of Guarantees, that should no more be an issue. Technically therefore, Malaysiakini need not have a publishing licence although they are undertaking web-publishing. Modern push and pull technologies therefore allow the promoters to bypass the otherwise traditional need for a printing licence. Nonetheless, they do need to accept and face all the normal hassles of “media control” in what the Government of the day considers is “sensitive” in a large multiracial setting. Freedom of the individual is not always freedom from regulation as well.

As a person, who enjoys writing myself, I believe that it is responsible citizenry who can make Asian Cyberactivism reasonable and legitimate without having to evoke artificial concerns for media censorship.

In fact, all media-owners practice some form of self-censorship internally as well. I should know as a part-time columnist. Therefore, some form of censorship is always present and we should therefore dismiss the so-called and false hypothesis about “objective journalism.” All journalism is coloured by the perceptions of the beholder. The real question is what and how much is tolerable in any society?

From my limited experience with writing a column, only about 5% of my column’s were censored in any way. Even in such cases, I believe it was more self-censorship or “a false fear of unintended consequences” by the editors themselves rather than the political system. “That is a self-exercised choice of media owners to opt for a politically correct reputation.” The Iraq war and the birth of embedded journalists and the rise of blogging established such facts for all the world to see, hear and read.

Therefore my central thesis for much of Asia is let us cultivate “responsible journalism” as opposed to simply “sensational journalism.”

For instance, the NST Opinion page of February 8, 2004 carried two good articles from the New York Times; one by Raymond Bonner and the other by David Brooks. Both in their own ways address the core issue of responsible journalism. The Bonner article focused the analysis on the SCOPE issue and concluded that CIA Chief Tenet “misinformed” the Georgetown University audience that the Malaysian government has closed down the facility. But, given that this is the CIA chief, one wonders whether this is really not “disinformation” because the fact is, as Bonner has argued and we are all aware, the plant is operating in a business as usual mode!

Now, for all of us interested in Cyberactivism in the context of Media Censorship versus Individual Freedoms of expression, where or how can we draw the line between information, misinformation and disinformation in the specific case I mentioned? To me, the answer to this issue is found in the Brooks article also carried by the NST entitled, “CIA propagated myth that it possesses analytical methods.” His thesis is that CIA has propagated a myth of “objective and scientific analysis” despite a record studded with errors. Brooks then argues that the so-called “scientific framework” cannot for instance, explain the case of suicide bombings. To this Brook’s analysis, we can add one more error of “wrong information” in the particular case of SCOPE. Now then, when it comes to CIA’s “development journalism,” one can only speculate where to find the Weapons of Mass Destruction via such “scientific investigations.” Or is it more accurate to call it “the Weapons of Mass Deception” as STAR headlined Martin Khor’s article on the 9th of February.

In conclusion then, much like the authors of the book, I believe that cyberactivism can be a very good thing for Asia. Nonetheless, to help Asia become an informated society, we must help Asians migrate towards a new governance framework of e-citizenship. In fact, media in Asia can and should collaborate with governments and the private sector to rid much of Asia from “corruption and inefficiency that is becoming endemic globally.” Therefore, media can actively mobilise an e-citizen movement towards good governance. And, if there is political will, the necessary technical skills and a clear business strategy for doing so, I believe 10% of Malaysians and much of Asia who are on the net can be easily mobilised by the media to become the eyes and ears of the enforcement agencies to report on probable inefficiency and corruption. We, at MIMOS Berhad, call this model Smart Governance, Malaysian-style.

In all smart partnerships for good governance, we can create win-win-win for all parties, whether government agencies, or the private sector (as victims of poor governance) or even the third sector, whether community organisations, academia or even the media as advocates for good and traditional values.

Such an e-citizen movement can become an effective force of positive change in Asia and then we can demonstrate to the rest of the world that we can and do have the political will to change from within and remain relevant in a fast-changing and globalising world. And, for those who have not yet seen the movie, The Last Samurai, you may want to capture some of the traditional Asian values of discipline and honour as depicted in the movie. All such traditional values are being challenged by modernisation and globalisation.

Finally, I also hope all students of both journalism and political science would make the time to read the book and then consider how to make Cyberactivism a positive force for change towards good governance in Asia.