Dear Minister Gobind Singh Deo,

As activists and academics who have scrutinised developments on media freedom and media democratisation for over two decades, many of us welcome your announcement on amending the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998, but we feel the scope of your review is too limited.

Your focus seems to be on Section 233 (on improper use of network facilities or network service), but not on Section 211 (on the prohibition of offensive content), or Section 263 (blocking websites).

There were no references in your announcement about reforming the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission or media reforms, as far as democratising licences to broadcasters.

The CMA does not provide an enabling environment for independent media, or any guidance on how we can prevent the dominance of large corporations or conglomerates in the media industry.

We are keen to see how reforms will encourage the missing third tier of community media, essential to sustaining media democratisation.

As we have already moved into a digital era, the issues of ownership and content are interconnected and need to be approached together.

Thus, we hope for a thorough review of licensing requirements, strengthening the introductory public interest preamble to the act, in line with the important concept that the airwaves are a public asset and need to be regulated in the public interest (whether the broadcaster or internet service provider is commercially-owned, public-owned or community-owned), and strengthening of anti-competition practices.

These are long-term changes, but discussions with interested communities, NGOs and the affected business community need to begin as soon as possible.

We may not get all the changes at first go, but it is important that these issues are placed on the ministry’s reform agenda so we can come back to them again, maybe with a fresh set of objectives or with a more diverse range of stakeholders.

We agree that not all legal changes need to happen immediately, but it will be a good start to share your plan or a set of targets.

Legal changes are political, but they can also represent society’s aspirations and how we wish to express our values and freedoms. There will be differences and contestations, but how these will be considered can be determined by you, dear minister.

Get views of stakeholders

Do you value a collaborative approach and one that involves stakeholders? Will you get your ministry to engage with multiple stakeholders more actively whenever there are changes planned? Or will you only respond to corporate and political interests and restrict your consultation to legal expertise?

While legal inputs are important, we trust you appreciate that the laws are not only for the lawyers. Laws are norm and value setting instruments. They define how we, as a society, relate to each other and interact with the institutions of the state.

Victims of state abuses are many and of different backgrounds. Our view is that excluding the voices of those who have experiences with the law will render any changes to come off as a top-down and exclusive approach. A bad law-making process is an injustice to society.

There are several ways in which experiences, opinions, expert views and other inputs can be solicited. Face-to-face meetings are of high importance.

Yes, there are many interest groups and individuals with their own views and agendas. But we cannot have a situation where instead of opening up avenues for discussions, we see exclusive meet-ups, run precisely the way the previous regime did, in full secrecy.

Apart from meetings, the ministry could set up a dedicated email or page online to solicit public feedback.

Set a time frame and provide adequate information on what the proposals are, and open them for public comments.

Your staff will have to sift through the comments but there might be useful, important and necessary ideas to consider.

Instead of talking about replicating India’s Aadhar, maybe look at how the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) ran its public consultation on the issue of net neutrality a few years ago.

In the meantime, here are some of the groups that have voiced concerns and made recommendations regarding reforms of the CMA. Some were also submitted to the Institutional Reforms Committee, which completed its task in July this year.

For a start, we hope you will extend invites to NGOs that have advocated for these reforms, among them (not an exhaustive list) the Centre for Independent Journalism, Sinar Projek, Empower, Suaram, Aliran, Article 19 Malaysia, Civicus, Geramm, Pusat Komas, the Malaysian Centre for Constitutionalism and Human Rights, journalists and those in the creative industries, as well as independent media outlets.

But there are academics, communities and individuals who have had to bear the brunt of censorship, lack of access and harassment. They will also be able to give you important perspectives and insights.

We look forward to an open and transparent engagement with your ministry on the reforms involving the communications and multimedia industries and regulations.

Gayathry Venkiteswaran and Sonia Randhawa are FMT readers.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.