THE long-anticipated Malaysian Media Council (MMC) is edging closer to reality. Recently, Fahmi Fadzil, spokesperson for the unity government who is also Communications Minister, announced that the MMC Bill had secured Cabinet approval and would soon be tabled in the Dewan Rakyat.
This announcement marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing efforts to foster a more democratic, free, and ethical media environment in Malaysia. The MMC is expected to bring significant positive change, particularly at a time when Malaysia is facing declining press freedom.
Malaysia’s ranking in the 2024 World Press Freedom Index dropped to 107th place, a sharp decline from its 2023 position of 74. Reporters Without Borders highlighted various reasons for this drop. One of the main concerns was the country's restrictive legal framework on media and access to information.
Addressing this issue is critical, as it undermines the credibility of Malaysia's media sector and its ability to serve as a watchdog for democracy.
Challenges to press freedom in Malaysia
Press freedom, while universally recognised as a fundamental right, is often constrained by national laws. Internationally, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) guarantees the right to express opinions and ideas freely through any media and across borders.
Similarly, Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) acknowledges freedom of expression but permits restrictions to protect national security, public order, or individual rights.
In Malaysia, Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of expression.
However, this right is not absolute. Parliament is authorised to legislate restrictions to maintain public order, morality, and other national interests. Based on this provision, several laws have been enacted, many of which have drawn criticism for stifling media freedom.
The Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA) regulates printing licences and the distribution of publications. While intended to combat false information in print media, it has often been criticised as a tool for censorship.
Similarly, the Official Secrets Act 1957 (OSA) restricts access to government information, citing the need to protect “official secrets”. This law has been viewed as a barrier to transparency and public accountability.
The Sedition Act 1948, a remnant of British colonial rule, criminalises speech with "seditious tendencies". Although there have been calls for its repeal, the Act continues to be used, raising concerns about its impact on free expression.
Meanwhile, the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA) imposes stringent controls on electronic media, particularly Sections 233 and 211. Section 233 criminalises the misuse of network facilities with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass, while Section 211 prohibits the publication of offensive content online.
These provisions have far-reaching implications, encompassing social media platforms, online news portals, virtual forums, and communication apps.
Additionally, media practitioners face the looming threat of defamation lawsuits, often involving hefty damages.
Together, these laws create a challenging landscape for press freedom, making it difficult for media practitioners to operate without fear of reprisal.
Role and importance of a media council
The idea of a Malaysian Media Council dates back to 1974, reflecting decades of aspiration for an independent platform that balances press freedom with accountability. The MMC is envisioned as a self-regulatory body, offering the media industry greater autonomy while promoting ethical journalism.
Globally, media councils operate under varying models. The Swedish Media Council exemplifies a fully autonomous, self-regulatory model where the industry manages its affairs without government interference.
In contrast, the Indian Press Council functions under a statutory framework, with administrative oversight by Parliament and government funding.
Both models provide valuable lessons, and Malaysia’s approach should carefully consider the unique needs of its media landscape. A well-structured MMC could enforce high standards of journalism ethics, ensuring that reporting is accurate, balanced, and impartial.
By fostering ethical practices, the council could reduce the risk of punitive legal actions against media practitioners, enabling them to operate responsibly and effectively.
The MMC could also serve as a safeguard for media consumers. Individuals aggrieved by unethical reporting would have a platform to lodge complaints, and the council could facilitate remedies such as public apologies, corrections, or compensation for defamatory content. In some countries, media councils are even empowered to award damages to victims of unethical journalism.
Additionally, the MMC could play a vital role in combating the spread of misinformation by promoting the dissemination of verified and accurate news.
Need for broader legal reforms
While the establishment of the MMC is a significant step forward, its effectiveness hinges on broader legal reforms. Existing laws such as the PPPA, the Sedition Act, and the CMA must be revisited to align with contemporary standards of press freedom.
Moreover, a Freedom of Information Act should replace the restrictive OSA, guaranteeing public access to information and fostering greater transparency in governance.
Reforms must also address concerns about over-regulation. For instance, proposals to license social media platforms should be approached cautiously to avoid undermining the freedoms envisioned under the MMC framework. Instead, regulatory measures should prioritise the promotion of responsible media practices without imposing undue burdens on practitioners or platforms.
The Malaysian Media Council holds the potential to transform the country’s media landscape by fostering a culture of democratic, ethical, and responsible journalism. However, this potential will remain unrealised without comprehensive legal reforms that address the restrictive framework currently governing the media.
The MMC must not be perceived as an additional layer of regulation in an already constrained environment. Instead, it should be the cornerstone of a broader reform agenda that prioritises press freedom, transparency, and accountability.
Only through such reforms can Malaysia restore confidence in its media institutions, improve its global standing, and ensure a vibrant, informed, and democratic society.
DR HAFIDZ HAKIMI HARON
Universiti Utara Malaysia
(The author is a senior lecturer at the School of Law, College of Law, Government, and International Studies, Universiti Utara Malaysia.)
