Response to UNMC’s Freedom of Expression in Malaysia Talk

Last week UNMC hosted an event with two fascinating speakers Sonia Randhawa and Fuad Rahmat discussing legislation around freedom of expression and the state of medias under the current government.  Two students share their thoughts from a Malaysian and foreign (Canadian) perspective.

Malaysian Perspective – Denon Ho

The Forum was highly beneficial and illustrated well the vague boundaries of freedom in Malaysia. First, I personally learnt that, from the legal point of view explained by Sonia, it’s as similar to the legality outline in an authoritarian country. It is being written in a way that could make everything illegal or legal depending on the judgement of the state. Which is again not much different from an authoritarian country that will put anyone into jail as long as it goes against state interest. What is interesting is that the inefficiency of Malaysia’s Government is in one way often being criticised, but on the other hand, is what is fuelling the democracy that Malaysia claims itself to be.

Adding to that, the forum provided insight in understanding how to push the boundary within the legality framework. It seems the way to bypass the legislation of getting arrested by the government (as everything can be considered as seditious) is the very core idea to further support/promote freedom of expression by being low key and under the government monitoring radar. By reaching out to the ground without gaining much government attention and intensify community education to empower the citizen UNDER the radar freedom of expression stands a chance.

Foreign Perspective – Olivia Dumas

Gaining a more profound understanding of the legal ramifications involved in giving your opinion in Malaysia was, frankly, a bit depressing. The bottom line is that you can get arrested for anything and everything; the elastic band of the law can stretch as far as it needs to or snap back for others. Nevertheless what Sonia Randhawa and Ahmad Fuad Rahmat really (perhaps unknowingly) taught me in the Freedom of Expression workshop was that fighting for it doesn’t have to be as scary as the repercussions imply. In recent experiences I have learned that semantics are everything in Malaysia, and this certainly applies to media activism. It is all about HOW you say things. The debate over censorship is not black and white even as regards to hate speech. Who it impacts and how it is dealt with are ways of steering the debate away from censorship and towards more productive ways of dealing with oppression of freedom of speech. Choosing how to formulate or asking the right questions can change a situation and be the difference between positive or negative reactions and subsequent government backlash.

Furthermore, I took away from it an element of hope for community and grassroots media. These medias do not yet exist but have the potential to be; they can slip between the cracks and accomplish more than large corporate owned medias by their conspicuous nature. Community and grassroots social medias are an unknown factor for the government and for Malaysian society and the lack of demand does not necessarily entail potential lack of response. As a feminist killjoy cynic I often bring an element of pessimism to the table as I truly believe the world is a tough place to live in and Malaysia’s legislation does little to change that point of view, however the key takeaway was not the bleakness of media’s landscape but rather the opposite. Existing debates over freedom of expression have gone stale and journalism’s future is at risk, but there is a beacon of hope in the emergence of new medias with unknown powers. Community and online medias can perhaps find the language that is necessary to bypass nebulous laws and usher in a new era of, if not completely free, at the very least interesting alternative expression.

Learn how to be an ally!

For those who couldn’t make it to our workshop we managed to film and put together the key part of the workshop with our wonderful guest speaker Nisha.  She really forced people to think twice about how the trans* community is treated in Malaysia, educating and making us laugh along the way.  A big thanks to her!

A Blogger’s Responsibility

Following (belatedly) in the footsteps of the post on moderating I wanted to introduce the ethics of blogging as a way of summing up our Round Table meeting on UNMC Expressions, showcasing the infographic on Expressions  and introducing a code of blogging ethics featured on the blog mor10.com.  This code of ethics is similar to many journalist code of ethics but is slightly adapted to more personal and comment based media.  In the effort to strengthen the core of this blog and until we set our own code of ethics this should stand in as a model or at least a reference.

Short Version

1. It is your right to voice your opinion. Freedom of Speech, Information, Publication and Expression are basic elements of a democracy. As a Content Creator it is your obligation to use and protect these rights at all times.

2. Be critical of everything, even your self. As a Content Creator you are part of the creation of free knowledge creation and discussion. It is your obligation to shed critical light on what goes on in society as well as how Content Creators, including your self, are presenting these events.

3. Use your power to protect. As a Content Creator you can shine a light on injustices and neglect perpetrated on individuals and groups. Use this power wisely.

4. Tell the truth at all times. With great power comes great responsibility. Words and images are powerful weapons that should be used with the utmost care. When publishing content, present the facts as they are, even if you disagree with them.

5. Present your opinion as your opinion. Your opinion and interpretation of events is important and should be shared but must never be confused with hard facts or data. When voicing your own or someone else’s opinion or interpretation, always state it as such. Never present opinion, interpretation or conjecture as fact.

6. State your allegiances to stay independent. To preserve your own trustworthiness and integrity as a Content Creator, always state any relation, financial, personal, political or otherwise, to the subject or topic you are presenting. Bias, even if it is only perceived as such, immediately discredits your account unless you warn of it first. In simple terms; if you have a political affiliation that colours your judgment, say so; if you are employed by or received money from the subject you are covering, say so; if you were given gifts or preferential treatment in return for a positive review or commentary, say so. By stating these facts of allegiance your opinions gain informational value that would otherwise be lost in suspicion of bias.

7. Reveal your sources unless doing so can harm your sources. Always reveal your sources to ensure transparency unless doing so may put the source in harms way. In ensuring transparency you lend credibility to your own content as well as provide others to further pursue the facts of the matter.

8. Be critical of your sources and seek independent verification. Even if you are ethical and unbiased there is no guarantee your sources are. Before presenting information as fact, always check your source’s credibility and seek independent verification of these facts. If none can be found, state so clearly.

9. Always give credit where credit is due. Give proper attribution when using, quoting or basing your content on the work of others. In other words present quotes as quotes, link to original articles, give photo and illustration credit to the original creator etc.

10. Always preserve the intended meaning of a given statement. When quoting or paraphrasing a statement always ensure that the intended meaning is communicated. Never edit or change a statement in such a way that the intended meaning is changed.

11. Give your opponent a chance to respond. The very foundation of an open discussion is to give either side an opportunity to voice their opinion. Always provide an opportunity for your opponent to present the case of the opposing side.

12. Admit and correct your mistakes immediately. When an inaccuracy or error in your content is discovered by you or someone else, correct it immediately and announce that you have done so to ensure that those who base their opinions and other content creation on the incorrect information have a chance to make corrections as well. It is your duty to uphold the truth and present fact even if that means admitting you were wrong.

 

This begs the question: What code of ethics are UNMC Expressions admin using?

I found out who JAIS was last Friday.

Q+A portion of the workshop.

 Malaysian politics are filled with invisible lines, dead-ends, barriers and U-turns. Much like its treacherous traffic, to swerve too quickly or brake too fast can be dangerous and sometimes lethal. Though new to Malaysia, while organizing an event centred around trans* rights and “how to be an ally” to marginalized communities I got the feeling we were crossing a line somewhere in the web of Malaysia’s confusing political and religious traffic jam.   The question was, what would be the consequences? A slap on the wrist? A crisp RM50 note handed over to an officer? Turns out I still have no idea.

Though Nisha, our guest speaker had arrived and the room was slowly filling with students and lecturers, minutes before our event was to begin, we were accosted by the Vice-Provost with a furrowed brow. Apparently JAIS had been tipped off that we were having an event and this meant… ???. All that we were told is that we were not to mention our school in connection to the issues we were discussing, that the school would film the event (video forthcoming on the blog), our head of security was present and we had to “watch what we said”. Following this announcement the air filled with nervous energy, students who were present at that time shifted uncomfortably and I exchanged tense looks with my fellow panellists, though frankly I wasn’t sure why…

A quick search on JAIS led me to a few interesting articles connected to their activities. For those unfamiliar with this name, they are Selangor’s Islamic Religious Department. They conduct raids, dictate what does or does not go against Islam in the public sphere and enforce this with the help of state police. Religion and politics melded into one department whose jurisdiction appears both infinite and simultaneously subject to regulation by higher powers. One of their latest endeavours, chronicled in The Star, The Malaysia Insider and The Malaysia Mail details their raid on the Bible Society of Malaysia where 300 Malay and Iban Bibles were seized (MI, Jan. 3^rd) for using the word ‘Allah’ to refer to ‘God’. Having conducted a bit of research I have begun to understand the glum look communicated by those who knew the name at the event. Nisha, our speaker has been caught in religious officer’s crosshairs before and been imprisoned for simply being herself and (unluckily for her in this case) a Muslim subject to Sharia law. In the case of our event where would the hammer fall? Despite her being the strongest and incidentally most vulnerable among us at the workshop would Nisha be affected once again? Worse case scenario would we (myself and other internationals) get deported for “illegal activity”, would the school suffer for this or worse, my Malaysian friends for whom the consequences would be more daunting? Since the event we have not heard back from them and though the school seems supportive I do not know which line was crossed, when the other foot will fall or if intimidation was the only tactic. Paranoia has never been my thing nor has giving in to bullies and while our group will undoubtedly continue to organize our informative, educational (non-threatening!) events I have learned since JAIS came to visit that checking your rear-view mirror and keeping an eye on that blind spot isn’t a bad idea either.

A little hate-speech on our posters – JAIS aren’t the only ones who missed the point.

UPCOMING EVENT: LEARN HOW TO BE AN ALLY

In preparation for Friday’s event called “How to Be an Ally Workshop and Q+A” with special guest Nisha Ayub (which you should ALL be coming to), I want to introduce some of the concepts we’ll be exploring and the controversy surrounding our poster that has made this event all the more important.

After attending the launch of the Ally Toolkit and video at Annex Gallery I thought it would be great to bring Nisha, one of the central players in the initiative to our school to introduce the video and answer questions.  Nevertheless, doing such a simple thing requires careful promotion consideration since publicizing the event for what it really is might not appeal to a student body that is largely unaware of trans* rights and perhaps prejudiced against them.  The event was therefore modified to become an Ally workshop in general to accommodate more speakers and make it more accessible.  Creating our poster was difficult because the event could not be organized under the Round Table given it is not an official school group, but doing it under the LGBT group proved to be impossible as well given the school refuses to acknowledge, albeit under external pressure, that lgbt people attend the school.  Without going into too many details about semantics (whether capital “C” could be used for community or not and other such things) the posters were made at last and put up and the event is still happening but it definitely brings up questions surrounding academia’s reluctance to pick sides or go against the grain.     

Nevertheless to me these obstacles seem to underline even further the need for this event.  The fact that something seemingly so simple to organize needed to be so careful was a reminder of how desperately we need to stand up for those on the margins and educate ourselves.  Since arriving on this campus words like disability, transgender, fatphobia, ageism, shadeism, queer, feminism, mental health, racism and class disparity (and more) are rarely mentioned outside the classroom and if they are, are whispered about or dismissed.   It’s time these words stop being taboos and become part of something we address in our daily lives.  This workshop therefore will be about beginning this conversation so that the next time a racist comment, sexist slur or rape joke is uttered you won’t pretend it didn’t happen, but more than that, understanding that the key takeaway from this workshop will be that you cannot be an ally if you don’t act.

The goal of the workshop is not to scare you away but rather empower you to stand up for yourself and others.  Bring your questions (introverts are welcome too!) and come with an open mind.

Refer to event at: https://www.facebook.com/events/699081260134505/?ref=ts&fref=ts

In Honour of International Women’s Day

FEMINISM SAVED MY LIFE       

I didn’t know that I had needed saving until I learned how courageous I could be.  The beauty of it was that feminism didn’t sweep in on a white horse.  I saved me.

I stopped being embarrassed.  I found out that fighting another day is today.  That I can talk back, bite back, screaming at the top of my lungs, cry the ugly way, BE UGLY, because only those who were really looking would see me anyways.  I stopped apologizing, started alienating, and you know what? I haven’t regretted a single day I put you on the chopping block when you chose to dismiss me.  I do however cringe at the memory of saying no, not standing up for her, shrinking away from conflict, accepting I couldn’t change things and letting you make me feel small.

I’d rather walk into a room filled with stares than compromise for one more second.  Pretending I don’t notice your misogyny hurts more than the rape jokes and the catcalls.

My sheroes are the most badass women and come in all shapes, colours and sizes.  They have taught me everything I know and will keep on teaching me without judgement or condescension.  They see my faults but they value my strengths and remind me every day that I am worth something.  I don’t have to change myself to be like them, and they wouldn’t want that anyways.  They are humbling and teach me to question my privilege but they don’t let me wallow in guilt.

I have fight in me that is motivated by the taste of who I am under all these layers.  I am angry, yes, but that is only because you will not let me shed this heavy casing that I must drag with me everywhere.  I am sick of putting it on at your convenience when I have finally felt its weight lift from my shoulders.  I do not have to explain why this feels better.  I WILL not explain what you choose to ignore.  I am not exaggerating, I am not making it up and you do not get the luxury of seeing me walk away from this one.

Because now that my life has been saved, you are never getting it back.

Olivia

Refer to sites like: http://everydayfeminism.com/

A few thoughts on moderating…

Following the group’s second meeting I have been thinking about what it means to be a moderator.  To understand where a conversation is going, create an atmosphere conducive to dialogue, encourage everyone to speak and balance out opinions is truly a gift and one that I hope can be developed through practice as much as talent.  Can a moderator be too involved?  Should a moderator give their opinion?  Are there different approaches that can yield the same effect?  What kind of questions should prod the discussion forward?  SO MANY QUESTIONS.

In the effort to improve in this capacity I have approached certain Round Table attendees and asked them their opinion on the subject which has led me to be mindful of three aspects of group discussion that need to be taken into account:

1) The topic:  This is the most important aspect of the discussion and can determine how opinions will be given.  The topic needs to be broad enough that it can include a variety of sub-topics that can be touched on, controversial enough to encourage multiple points of view that should not always align with each other and specific enough to create a personal or at least empathetic connection with the individual (i.e. we should be able to relate/create connections to our own lives).  Not too easy.

2) The attending group: As someone pointed out to me there’s nothing that subversive about a group of people getting together to agree with each other.  Which incidentally I totally agree with.  Therefore, as much as possible, diversifying the attending crowd can be a great way to diversify conversation.  Of course, you can’t exactly control who shows up to your meetings but it’s still something to consider.

3)The moderator: Back to us.  I think to be able to lead the discussion the moderator needs to not pick a topic to which they are not too personally attached because it may complicate involvement and will also demonstrate a clear bias (making it difficult in turn for others to contradict this opinion).  As for the best way to lead a discussion, I’m still figuring that one out but I’m hoping that the continued feedback of those involved (hint, hint) and an ongoing reassessment and questioning of methods can help.

 

Olivia

Malaysiakini Paint Splattered

Red Paint and a dead duck were left at the Malaysiakini office in Bangsar Utama in the ongoing retaliation against Teresa Kok …  What does it mean when people start directly attacking the medias?  A demonstration of the power of words and the dangers of being in journalism.

See article for more details: http://m.malaysiakini.com/news/255321

UNMC Expressions

Our Thursday meeting was a discussion on Unmc’s very own controversial Expressions page (see: https://www.facebook.com/pages/UNMC-Expressions/151750361657832?ref=ts&fref=ts).                      

Opinions were heard, agreements and disagreements were had and suggestions were made.  Here were a few of the group’s ideas on how to make this mixed bag of gossip, information and day-to-day advice into an ethically transparent, accountable and reliable page:

-Adopt a social network other than Facebook that allows for more flexibility in its settings (4chan was cited as an example)

-Admins should either adopt a hard and fast set of guidelines and rules dictating content and user behaviour OR remove existing rules to allow complete freedom of expression

-Admins should be more transparent in their intentions; what is the purpose of the page and why are their guidelines in place

-Admins should adopt a sensible banning approach if need be. I.e. warnings, notice and temporary suspension before banning and censoring if users post material that does not respect their guidelines

-Admins should sign their posts – pseudonyms being acceptable – so users can know how many there are and how responses are handled (eg: does every admin respond to controversy in the same manner and according to the same policies)

To read more of The Round Table’s ideas, you can refer to a full transcript of the meeting that should be available in the near future and hopefully for next meeting a podcast companion!

Till next time!

TRT

Welcome to the Round Table Blog

On the eve of it’s second meeting, this Thursday (February 20th 2014) it is with great pleasure that we launch the discussion group’s website!  Expect many additions in the upcoming weeks including a podcast, videos, articles, twitter updates and infographics.

If you have any questions or comments don’t hesitate to let us know on here or our facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/groups/unmctrt/).