When introducing the Broadcasting Amendment Bill yesterday, the Information Minister, Datuk Mohamad Rahmat said that the bill, which is to cater for new technologies in satellite broadcasting, is part of the government’s efforts to create an Information Society.
“Information Society” has become a popular catch-phrase for Ministers in their speeches and statements to make them sound very contemporary and up-to-date, but unfortunately, very few Ministers have shown that they really understand the meaning of an “Information Society”.
In his speech, the Information Minister, Datuk Mohamad Rahmat has said that access to information is vital to development but has he put into practice this injunction about the importance of access to information with regard to the formulation, presentation and passage of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill?
The Information Minister is one of the Cabinet Ministers who talk the most about “Information Society”, but he seems to understand this concept least. Let me ask Datuk Rahmat what he understood by “Information Society”?
At minimum, an “Information Society” is one where information are increasingly available and democratic!
If the Information Minister had really understood the meaning of an “Information Society”, he would not have introduced the Broadcasting Amendment Bill touted as part of the government’s efforts to create an “Information Society” in a manner which is totally contrary to the spirit and essence of an “Information Society”.
If the Information Minister had understood the meaning and essence of an Information Society, he would not have drafted the Broadcasting Amendment Bill in total secrecy in the past few years, without any public involvement or consultation whatsoever, and would not have have compelled Parliament to debate the Broadcasting Amendment Bill and to take the Bill through all three readings when the Bill had not been made public to the country and was only tabled in the Dewan Rakyat yesterday - for these are all sins in an Information Society in denying the public and Parliament access to information.
Standing Order 48 requires at least one day’s notice before there could be a second reading and debate of a Bill, which is a conventional parliamentary safeguard against abuses of government parliamentary majorities in stampeding Bills through Parliament without giving MPs and the country at large adequate time to study and debate any proposed new legislation.
This could be considered as a sort of “minimum safeguard” in a pre-Information Society in Malaysia to ensure that there is minimum access of information - which should be expanded in efforts to promote an Information Society.
Instead, in the name of wanting to create an Information Society in the distant future which will give top importance to access to information, the Information Minister has destroyed even such “minimum safeguards” for access to information in a Pre-Information Society by suspending Standing Order 48 so that he could take the Broadcasting Amendment Bill through all three readings, without giving MPs or the nation any opportunity to study and discuss (and I mean discuss intelligently, in relation to the specific Bill) the proposed amendmernts.
It would appear that the Ministry of Information is a misnomer and should rightly be changed to Ministry of Denial of Information and the Minister called the Minister for Denial of Information.
If Malaysia is serious in wanting to take a quantum leap into the future of Information Technology as announced by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamed in early August when he spoke about the RM5 billion Multi-Media Super Corridor (MSC), then Cabinet Ministers and MPs must be full participants of such a quantum leap to create an information society in Malaysia.
I propose that a special course should be organised for all Cabinet Ministers and MPs to make them proponents and not obstacles of an Information Society in Malaysia by ensuring that Cabinet Ministers and MPs are among the first group of Malaysians to possess the proper mind-set for an Information Society, which can set the example for the rest of the country in emphasising the value of greater availability and democratisation of information.
With such an Information Society mind-set, no Minister will present Bills for debate and passage by Parliament without first allowing ample time for MPs and the public to study and discuss any proposed new legislation, including an opportunity for public participation in the various phases of formulation of new policy or legislation.
With such an Information Society mind-set, Parliament and Government will not wait until the completion of the Multimedia Super Corridor and the Prime Minister’s Office to become paperless when it moved to Putra Jaya in 1998, but will immediately begin the process of digitisation.
Parliament and the Ministry of Information both have websites. Why can’t the text of the Broadcasting (Amendment) Bill be posted on either the Parliament or Ministry of Information websites to invite public comments and reactions - especially as the Information Minister had said that the Bill had been ready for quite some time?
The Prime Minister’s speeches are now posted on the Internet immediately after they had been delivered, and this is most commendable. There is no reason why all new bills cannot be posted on the Internet once they are ready, and not until they are tabled in Parliament for first reading.
It has been said that as we enter the new millennium, the line between success and failure of nations is digital.
If Malaysia is to leapfrog into the Digital Age, Parliament and Government must be leading proponents of the Internet by using it to assist in the electronic dissemination of relevant information to the public at large - to introduce the concept of “electronic democracy” where people can access and disseminate information over the Internet in ways that were not previously possible.