Growing up, I've lived in three very different countries - Libya, the UK, and Malaysia. In each country, I have had the privilege to observe the completely contrasting levels of freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental liberty of Human Rights, as stipulated in various international treaties such as the United Nations Charter of Human Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights. It is regarded as of utmost significance in this digitally-inclined era, as people express their views through numerous social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter.
Based on my experience in the countries I’ve lived in, I wonder if absolute freedom of speech can truly be achieved. Or are we only attempting to get as close to its achievement, as we possibly can?
LIBYA
I lived in Libya for four years as a teenager during Colonel Muammar Al Gaddafi’s reign, a very prominent dictator. It is a country where there is very little freedom of speech.
Gaddafi exercised strict control on all channels of communication, enabling him to be in power for over forty years. It allowed him to control what people think of him; he was able to manipulate expressions or opinions that are published. He can silence those who tried to expose him or disagree with his ideologies. Any criticism of his governance will result in either a detention or a death punishment.
In 2011, four Times journalists were held captive by Gaddafi’s forces. Their ordeal, published in The New York Times newspaper, reported of their sexual assault, repeated beatings and threats of decapitation and death. Their lives were spared only because they were Americans.
The ‘Arab Spring’ revolution that same year resulted in the dictator being overthrown. This historic event was influenced by the emergence of social media, the most important outlet for Libya’s citizens, especially the youth, to get their news and views across. The social media ensures that other views, and not just the ‘accepted’ view, get published. Unfortunately, even after Gaddafi was thrown off, freedom of speech is still heavily restricted due to the instability of the country.
This confirmed my opinion that the revolution which overthrew the dictator has not been able to give a new level of freedom of speech to the people, unlike what was expected.
Currently, the political conflict and violence are still tearing up the state, making journalistic independence impossible. Legislative progress has been slow, as they are in the process of drafting a new constitution for the country, which would supposedly guarantee press freedom. Judging from the current situation, it would take an unforeseeable length of time to make that change. Even when it is finalised, who is to say that it will guarantee the freedom of expression?
Libya is ranked 162 out of 180 countries worldwide, in the 2018 World Press Freedom Index, moving up only one notch from its 163 ranks in 2017.
UK
I was in the UK for six years. Freedom of speech here is a stark contrast to Libya. I saw how a parliamentary democracy in a fully developed Western Country, under a constitutional monarchy state, deals with freedom of speech. Whereas in Libya the people are fearful of even mentioning Gaddafi’s name during his reign, in the UK everyone is free to say whatever they want, to the extent of poking fun at or criticising their Queen and the Prime Minister on national TV, without fear of any repercussion.
The UK is ranked 40 out of 180 countries in the 2018 World Press Freedom Index. However, it is one of the worst-ranked Western European countries in the Index.
The current Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, when interviewed in regards to Donald Trump’s visit and the protests against it, said “one of the great things about our country is we have a free press. We have the right to protest, the right to free speech. It's not for me to be a sensor.”
There are only a few exceptional laws that go against that fundamental right; laws against libel, slander, the disclosure of official secrets, and incitement to violence or hate directed at racial or religious minorities.
Based on this, it would be fair to claim that free speech does exist in the UK. Yes, it has been curtailed to achieve social harmony among the many different races and religions in the melting pot of this country, but it could still be considered as an avid defender of free speech, allowing its citizens to express their thoughts freely.
MALAYSIA
Coming back to Malaysia in 2016, I witnessed and experienced a considerable restriction in freedom of speech, compared to when I was in the UK. The official media is heavily controlled and often acted as the mouthpiece of the government, resulting in a few people charged and jailed for the criticism of the government and the royalty.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right provided under the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, published by the Reid Commission in February 1957, to prepare the Federation of Malaya to be a fully self-governing and independent state. The right to freedom of speech is entrenched in Article 10 of the Constitution which guarantees the right, as long as it is within the limits of the constitution. It provides citizens with an outlet to express their opinions freely without (supposedly) having to fear of the outcome. That said, Articles 10 (2) (a), (b) and (c) clearly states that parliament has the right to impose restrictions on them.
The previous government has exercised many laws that restrict the freedom of expression in Malaysia, including provisions relating to false information, slander and malicious content, online and offline. These laws however, are overly broad, ambiguous and restrictive.
These acts include the Defamation Act 1957, Sedition Act 1948, the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 and the latest Anti-Fake News Act 2018. These laws were put in place with the aim to preserve social harmony in a multi-racial country, nevertheless, it has also been misused to stifle free speech and restrict the flow of information for political reasons.
The government-of-the-day has promised, in its election manifesto, to abolish the existing laws that curb the freedom of speech. Although the media restriction can be considerably free now, it is yet to be known to what extent Freedom of Speech will be liberalised fully. This is due to the need to preserve social harmony, where ethnic and religion are very sensitive issues in our society.
It is obvious then, that freedom of expression will not be an absolute right in Malaysia. Its significance has to be kept neutralised and balanced, alongside the embracement of our multi-racial society, to maintain social efficiency.
Therefore, can we really say that freedom of speech is absolutely attainable? Or will it forever be hindered due to the need to consider the endless consequences of certain expressions and its effects on our society? Would we really be able to draw the line that divides what is, and what is not acceptable under freedom of speech, and ensure that society doesn’t descend into total chaos?
I think it is definitely an unattainable concept in Malaysia, regardless of what the government can do. Even in the UK, being the more ‘developed’ country is unable to achieve it. That said, we would still need to at least strive to find alternatives to the ‘offending’ acts that have always been ‘misused’ by the previous government. This is so that the current and future government are not allowed to exploit the same draconian laws as their predecessors, for their own gain, and so that the people of Malaysia are allowed to express their thoughts without fear.
We should focus on what makes our society unique and advocate freedom of expression in all aspects, as long as it does not seek to go against the social harmony we have going on in the country.