Asian Transformations in Action - Api-fellowships.org

8CIRCLES OF POWER AND COUNTERBALANCESThese opportunities are regulated by laws that restrictpolitical rights and are complemented by alternativechannels. The above findings will be captured in atentative model of the dynamics of opposition forcesand political freedom in Malaysia.Official Secrets (Amendment) Act, 1986In 1986, the Official Secrets (Amendment) Act wasenacted. This section depicts the political process of itslegislation, which included not only the governmentand the governing parties but also the oppositionparties and civil society; the rule-abiding nature of itsimplementation; and the dynamics of the oppositionforces.Political process of legislationThe background for the Official Secrets (Amendment)Act was the deepening of the government-privatesector relationship that resulted from a privatizationpolicy and the “Malaysia Incorporated” concept thatwas introduced in 1983. Paralleling this developmentwas an increase in citizens’ awareness of the state ofthe government’s economic management that resultedfrom the foreign media coverage of the mismanagementof public companies and corrupt practices of ministers.Cabinet documents related to this area of concern andinformation related to the tender award of a governmentproject, above all, came under public scrutiny, resultingin the leaking of related documents.The government became vigilant about the media,arguing that freedom of the press should be restrictedfor the sake of peace and economic development (NewStraits Times [NST], March 10, 1986). In March 1986,the government tabled the OSA amendment bill, whichestablished mandatory jail sentences to discourage theleaking of official secrets, including documents aboutthe government tender award.The amendment generated severe opposition fromthe National Union of Journalists (NUJ); the BarCouncil; trade unions, including the Malaysia TradeUnions Congress (MTUC) and the Congress ofUnions of Employees in the Public and Civil Services(CUEPACS); NGOs such as Aliran KesedaranNegara (National Consciousness Movement, Aliran),the Federation of Consumers’ Associations, and theUnited Chinese School Committees’ Association;and opposition parties such as the Democratic ActionParty (DAP). Even actors that were rather close tothe government opposed the amendment, such as theOrganization of Newspaper Editors (ONE), and theparties of the governing coalition Barisan Nasional(National Front, BN) such as Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia(Malaysian People’s Movement, Gerakan) and theMalaysian Chinese Association (MCA) (NST, March17, 18, 23, 25, 29, April 2, 3, 1986; Star, March 13,20, 30, 1986).The reasons for the opposition were two-fold. First, themandatory jail sentence was too harsh and deprived thejudiciary of its discretion to decide sentences. Second,the amendment did not stipulate a definition of “officialsecrets” (NST, March 8, 17, 23, 25, 28, 1986). By thistime, a definition of the term had been given by thecourt: “Government must surely have the undoubtedright to decide what information it would keep from thepublic. Such information would be official secrets…”(MLJ 1980, 293). It is understandable that peopleopposed an amendment that might land them in jailfor leaking any document classified at the whim of thegovernment as “official secrets.”Such widespread opposition, together with its ownconcern about the coming election, forced thegovernment to review the bill (NST, April 4, 5, 1986).In October 1986, the public saw a new bill with thefollowing provisions: (1) “official secrets” are (i) Cabinetdocuments; (ii) State Executive Council documents;(iii) documents concerning national security, defenseand international relations; (iv) documents concerningfederal-state relations; (v) advice, suggestions andrecommendations on the governance and functionof the government; (vi) documents concerning thenational economy, such as currency, budget proposal,and foreign investment; and (vii) documents relatedto tender awards (Schedule); (2) the Minister may, byorder published in the Gazette, change the items inSchedule (§2A); (3) the Minister’s decision to certifycertain documents as “official secrets” cannot bechallenged in courts (§16A); and, (4) mandatory jailsentences for offenders.Three categories of actors had distinct attitudes about thebill. Actors in the first category required the liberalizationof the OSA under the banner of Freedom of Information.For example, the Bar Council and NUJ called for thewithdrawal of the bill, because the definition of “officialsecrets” was too wide, the minister’s power to certify acertain document as “secret” was beyond judicial review,and the mandatory jail sentences deprived the judiciaryof its discretion (NST, October 29, November 7, 1986).This line of thought was shared by the trade unions,NGOs, academic societies, and opposition parties suchas the Democratic Action Party (DAP) (NST, October28, November 10, 14, 20, 22, 23, December 12, 1986;Asian Transformations in ActionThe Work of the 2006/2007 API Fellows