Contributed by Andrew Ang Yu Hui & H R Dipendra
This item has been updated since initial publication.
This topic attracted a full crowd in the small seminar room today, with audience members standing all the way to the far end of the room. The controversial reputation of the speakers may have been part of the attraction, much to the detriment of other parallel sessions.
Activism and social media
Co-founder of legal blawg www.loyarburok.com, Edmund Bon Tai Soon, in a casual half-leather jacket, t-Shirt and tight long pants, casually began the session by asking whether the audience thought our government had represented the people sufficiently. He continued his line of questioning by asking the floor whether, if they had RM500, they would use it to go for an Orang Asli trip and help them out, or they would rather save the money for a brand new iPhone.
Bon, as he is affectionately known, engaged the crowd passionately with a tone that shook the hearts and souls of those in the room. He emphasised the extent to which the marginalised, ethnic minorities and middle-class society, which formed the majority of our community, have not been represented.
Bon then pointed out that social media, such as Facebook, Twitter and blogs, has become an effective tool in reaching out to the majority, and to the oppressed and suppressed, and has effectively brought their voices out to the world, if not the nation.
He argued that the media and statutory bodies have on many occasions tried to influence and manipulate people formally or informally. However, we have not used social media to influence government legislation and policy-making enough.
Bon further stressed that he does not believe that democracy happens once every 5 years: the peoples’ voice must be heard every day. He hoped there will come a day when people can tweet petitions to the government and petitions can no longer be ignored and thrown into a bin.
Following that, Bon went on to question the role of a lawyer. Pursuant to section 42(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 1976, the objective of the Malaysian Bar is to uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interest or that of its Members, uninfluenced by fear or favour.
In the midst of the current contentious issues faced by Malaysia, Bon urged lawyers not to use social media tools to post frivolous, or even discouraging, comments, but to take positive actions to actively voice out the inequality, suppression, abuse of human rights and injustice that occur on a daily basis. Bon also compared Malaysia with other countries that have local assemblies, town halls and courts that try governments.
Twitter, the educational tool?
Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir, active on Twitter with approximately 7,000 followers, educated the crowd on cyberspace culture and how to build an effective outreach to the public.
Datin Paduka Marina opined that people will “see” you online, as people follow you on Twitter and this can be a tool to educate people, and an opportunity to set good examples for them. This will help build an online personality.
Democracy a failure?
The intense debate continued when Art Harun, who blogs at art-harun.blogspot.com, commented that democracy has not really failed, but is now in a state of flux thanks to people becoming more complacent and reluctant to pose tough questions for actions that the government could take.
Art put forward the argument that most people do not want to be seen as “non-mainstream”, and said that it was an “administered reality” that has caused people to be complacent. Art also postulated to the crowded house that online activism is in essence selective activism, lacks structural hierarchy and does not have organisational impact on real activism. Online activism, according to Art, is not a threat to national security.
The forum ended with an observation by Lee Shih, the session moderator. He said that although online tools (ie social media) may be an effective tool to reach out to people, it is nothing compared to having the crowd in the room, and feeling the passion of the people. Indeed it was a room filled with a lot of people. Hopefully the enthusiasm, evidenced by the massive turnout, would be translated into real activism.
He argued that the media and statutory bodies have on many occasions tried to influence and manipulate people formally or informally. However, we have not used social media to influence government legislation and policy-making enough.
Bon further stressed that he does not believe that democracy happens once every 5 years: the peoples’ voice must be heard every day. He hoped there will come a day when people can tweet petitions to the government and petitions can no longer be ignored and thrown into a bin.
Following that, Bon went on to question the role of a lawyer. Pursuant to section 42(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 1976, the objective of the Malaysian Bar is to uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interest or that of its Members, uninfluenced by fear or favour.
In the midst of the current contentious issues faced by Malaysia, Bon urged lawyers not to use social media tools to post frivolous, or even discouraging, comments, but to take positive actions to actively voice out the inequality, suppression, abuse of human rights and injustice that occur on a daily basis. Bon also compared Malaysia with other countries that have local assemblies, town halls and courts that try governments.
Twitter, the educational tool?
Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir, active on Twitter with approximately 7,000 followers, educated the crowd on cyberspace culture and how to build an effective outreach to the public.
Datin Paduka Marina opined that people will “see” you online, as people follow you on Twitter and this can be a tool to educate people, and an opportunity to set good examples for them. This will help build an online personality.
Democracy a failure?
The intense debate continued when Art Harun, who blogs at art-harun.blogspot.com, commented that democracy has not really failed, but is now in a state of flux thanks to people becoming more complacent and reluctant to pose tough questions for actions that the government could take.
Art put forward the argument that most people do not want to be seen as “non-mainstream”, and said that it was an “administered reality” that has caused people to be complacent. Art also postulated to the crowded house that online activism is in essence selective activism, lacks structural hierarchy and does not have organisational impact on real activism. Online activism, according to Art, is not a threat to national security.
The forum ended with an observation by Lee Shih, the session moderator. He said that although online tools (ie social media) may be an effective tool to reach out to people, it is nothing compared to having the crowd in the room, and feeling the passion of the people. Indeed it was a room filled with a lot of people. Hopefully the enthusiasm, evidenced by the massive turnout, would be translated into real activism.