.jpg)
THE recently postponed tobacco generational end game (GEG) bill seemed to be en route to being rushed through Parliament but received enough public backlash that it’s now being sent to the parliamentary select committee for further deliberations.
The backlash, mainly from lawyers and activists, was concerned with extra powers bestowed upon law enforcement that could curtail individual civil liberties; some scenarios included allowing police to enter homes without warrants and punitive punishments on individuals rather than distributors and sellers.
In spite of this, there was a spirited defence of the bill from government supporters and members of the healthcare fraternity. The latter group, in particular, through various posts across social media, stressed the need for this bill to save future generations from smoking, often downplaying the grievances over enforcement as minor concerns or necessary evils for the greater good.
While the delaying of the bill was applauded by many, questions emerged as to why health care professionals engaged in this heated defence of the bill.
Many of these posts on social media left little room for debate and viewed support of the bill as a strict dichotomy; accept the bill as it is or be considered a pro-smoking advocate.
In one such instance on social media, a fellow healthcare professional ended up getting doxxed (the leaking of personal details to the public with the intent to harm that individual) for not following the rest of their peers in supporting the bill.
This situation is a common occurrence in the public discourse of highly contentious and controversial bills.
Within the Malaysian legislature, most bills often bear banal and descriptive titles, and often the ones featuring tantalising titles are chosen as part of a larger strategy to gather support based on the rhetoric of the title.
Rhetorical titles are an incredibly effective way to shift public support towards or against a bill. A great example of this would be how the American Republican party constantly used the phrase Obamacare instead of its actual name, The Affordable Care Act.
This led many Americans to assume the bill was focused on cementing Obama’s legacy instead of actually providing affordable care (as many were completely ignorant about), and it was incredibly successful at that goal.
A local example would be the Anti-Fake News Act of 2018, which was rushed through Parliament shortly before GE14. A title such as this was meant to appease the public to accept its rhetorical premise: fake news is bad and this law will stop it.
But the bill itself lacked proper clarity, and definitions of “fake news” were determined only by the government and left the door wide open to abuse of power.
The fear at the time was that the government could label its critics and detractors as fake news and use this law against them. The act was ultimately repealed under the Pakatan Harapan government.
The situation with the GEG bill is not identical but shares common characteristics.
Despite objections to the GEG bill, fundamentally, many agree that this bill is necessary and is ultimately a good move for the country.
A more comprehensive deliberation process was needed to fine tune the bill’s specifics to ensure that civil liberties are not sacrificed.
There was no complete rejection but an appeal to have more time to finesse and perfect the bill’s delicate wording.
The supporters of the bill, though, were adamant in rejecting these concerns, with many healthcare professionals using health statistics to stress the danger of not passing this bill, leaving little room for debate.
When debating bills, it is important to look into the details lest we fall into a similar situation with the anti-fake news act. It’s not just about looking at the macro-rhetorics of the title but the micro-details as well.
The creation of new laws could have unintended or problematic consequences if not debated on properly, especially for something as revolutionary as the GEG.
While lawmakers in Parliament are the ones that debate and vote laws into existence, the average Malaysian is still part of the process.
Some Malaysians view their role in politics or law-making simply by voting their political representative in; this is but one of many ways that people can participate in a working democracy.
When bills are being debated in Parliament, it is the public’s duty to pay attention to these debates and to voice out your concerns or support for it.
Prior to social media, this was done through writing letters to your local newspaper, calling in to a talk show, or just contacting your local representative to ensure that your values, beliefs and viewpoints are taken into account in the debate of the bill.
Social media has greatly catalysed this process by allowing people to broadcast their viewpoints in a public manner – that can be seen by the public and lawmakers alike – and has expanded these debates into wide open spaces with thousands of voices participating at once.
As more people are engaged in the process, it’s also important to remember that even on social media, these are still public sphere debates about political issues that require a certain disposition to engage with. In particular, especially when debating a bill, it’s important that debates remain objective and all stakeholders are able to debate in good faith.
Each person presents a viewpoint or perspective. Others are free to disagree or rebut on the merits of these points, but not the individual or their political leaning.
Malaysians have become far more engaged in the country’s policy and law-making, going beyond just mere voters every five years. It is important that all quarters in the country recognise what healthy public debate is and focus on addressing issues objectively and avoid being misled by political propaganda.
While the GEG was successfully delayed in this instance, a stronger rhetorical call could be more effective in the future and Malaysians must be vigilant in defending our democracy and civil rights. – The Vibes, August 17, 2022
Benjamin YH Loh is a senior lecturer in the School of Media and Communication at Taylor’s University Malaysia and an associate with the Asia Centre in Bangkok
.jpg)
