In countries that are not fully democratic, where public officials often talk down to citizens, the press is often told to perform its function “with responsibility” in order to prevent unrest. “Unrest” here usually means a situation in which the establishment comes under scrutiny and criticism. However, since the days when news was spread by drumbeats, smoke signals or marathon runners, the messengers have always understood that their primary responsibility is to tell the truth.

But what if a certain piece of truth has the potential of bringing more harm than good to society? Some proponents of press freedom say it’s not the responsibility of the press to worry about the effects of truthful reporting; it’s the job of other institutions to handle the consequences. It is, for instance, the responsibility of the police to ensure that a race riot doesn’t break out as a result of a news report about a group of Chinese attacking a group of Malays.

The debate on press freedom and its extent will probably go on forever, but most reasonable people will agree that a news organisation, as part of the citizenry, has the obligation to protect certain government secrets – a precious few, we might add – if it happens to learn of them. These are usually military secrets. If the country is at war, exposing troop and equipment locations could lead to fatalities, not of politicians, but of innocent men and women. But the secrets that the press must protect certainly should not include, for example, dubious arms deals that hint of corruption.

The press definitely has a responsibility to the public to let it know if decisions made by those in power threaten the interests, well being and rights of the people. That is why there will always be people who leak information and media outlets that publicise such information.

That is why we respect people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, who have paid the price for daring to speak the truth. Their stories are not just inspirational platitudes about justice and common human decency, but also cautionary tales about how far a government is willing to go to protect it’s secrets and how much it hates having them brought to light.

It is important that we ruminate on these points even as Attorney-General Apandi Ali considers amendments to the Official Secrets Act to criminalise the leaking of government secrets. Essentially, it will become a law to shut up journalists who find, for example, evidence of corruption if that information is protected under the Act. Apandi has made it clear that he has “had enough” of leaks. He’s considering, believe it or not, life imprisonment and 10 strokes of the rotan for offenders.

There is a debate to be held here. On one hand, we have to consider the security and stability of the country – but only as defined by the Attorney-General, who answers to the Prime Minister. On the other hand, there is the journalistic responsibility to tell the truth and to shine a light in the dark corners of the halls of power.

It’s true that many journalists elsewhere have faced worse than life imprisonment, but in recent years we have come to believe that such extreme attempts to silence the press would be something we would no longer see in Malaysia as we try to be a respectable member of the international community. We didn’t figure on Apandi Ali.

It doesn’t have to be that way. There is a reason we have a Whistleblowers Act, and a need to strengthen it. There is no denying that endemic corruption, in the form of both graft and power abuse, is one of the deadliest plagues this country is facing. If the Attorney-General recognises that reality about Malaysia, then he must know that outright outlawing of reporting on information that comes from OSA-protected documents cannot be the way forward.

Yes, there are some things that must be held sacrosanct, but let us all agree that if there’s something that goes against the interests of the people, it must be brought to light. Ideally, there should be some kind of cooperation between media and law enforcement in the interest of upholding the rule and the spirit of the law and the common interests of the people.

So, all things considered, it boggles the mind that the National Union of Journalists should tell media practitioners not to fear the amendments to the Official Secrets Act, especially since we don’t know what those amendments are.