How do you define your action against misreport?
The rebel government should be held accountable on what they are trying to interpret here as such call for the authorities to take whatever action it could in the name of curbing misreport can be misguided and innocent parties could be wrongly taken into custody or charged in the court unnecessarily.
First of all, can the rebel government clearly define what is the actual definition of its alleged misreport news, statement or claims of “fake news”? The rebel government cannot just simply haul up any parties and in the end telling us that “let the court decides”. Such words are unbecoming and irresponsible. The rebel government must be held responsible on whatever actions undertook by them, their officials or authorities instructed by them.
If the rebel government fail to define what does it mean by misreporting in its context, the authorities assigned to act may take such instruction and define the alleged “wrongs” in according to their own judgment or “thought of the day”.
By using their own judgment or simply their “thought of the day” is indeed a dangerous precedent herein. As you know, the current movement control order (MCO) is still being enforced, and when enforcing the MCO, these officers in the field carrying out the task may endure in series of pressures and demands from both the environment and their superiors.
As the result of these pressures they are enduring with daily, these officers’ actions, reactions or responses may become emotional or their judgment may be inaccurate as the result of overly stressed while on the field undertaking their roles and responsibilities to ensure the MCO being adhered to daily.
Because of such situation, if they came across of a news which they dislike on its method of reporting, will these officers act on it based on the fact they dislike it? Or if the news reported a statement or criticism on the way such and such is being handled, and the authorities or officers disagree with such and such statements or criticisms, will take act on such reports by claiming that it has been “misreported” or it was a “fake news” instead? Does these authorities and their officers has clear definitions on what is really a “misreport” or “fake news”? We believed, the police and MCMC didn’t have any standard operations procedures (SOP) nor any references at all on how and what are defined as “misreport” or “fake news”.
We have observed and experienced on number of occasions previously that the authorities and their officers are simply given the green light to haul up and prosecute in accordance to their own judgment or should we say, their “thought of the day”. In other words, the authorities and their officers are likened to the “authorised dictionaries” of the day.
This means, if the rebel government does not clearly define their actions and the definition of what is supposedly “wrong” or an “offence”, criticism or scrutiny can be construed as “insult”, an opinion from one can be construed as “misreport”, giving differing views on certain matters can be labelled as “fake news”, a joke, drawing or cartoon can also be claimed as an “insult”, “create public nuisance” or “alarming the public”.
In another recent news reported yesterday, stating that an MP will be hauled up under the laws against “causing public alarm” if an alleged “video” on the CIQ crowds “linked to him” is proven to be originated from the said MP. In such case, has the authorities consider all points and facts before making such statements “asking him to be prepared for the arrest”? Why are they being so fast of judging that the MP is “already linked” to that video? It seems that it was the authorities themselves who are “overly alarmed” or panic on such as we did not see any “public alarm” taking place as the result of the said “video” even until today.
In our opinion, the official making such statement was too emotional and excited. And being emotional because he was authorised to use his own judgment or simply “thought of the day”. He should allow detailed investigations to be carried out first before make such statements “judging” that the MP is already “guilty” in his “point of view”. The officer concerned is not being professional in making his statements because investigation is still underway when he made his statements.
So, because these authorities and their officers are allowed to use their own judgment or “thought of the day”, their actions can be emotional according to the circumstances of the day or any event they might have been undertaking. In other words, these officers may wrongly make their judgment or their “thought of the day” were simply not in their mind because emotions are in control of them all the time and these worsens when SOP or clear definitions were not in placed to serve as a guide for these officers to follow through.
As such, if any minister, deputy minister, a senior official or a person of absolute authority read this article, did not agree with the statements made above, or disagree with our criticism or scrutiny, they may claim that we made “fake news”, “misreported facts”, “insulted them”, “causing public alarm” or whatever they deemed fit according to their own judgment or “thought of the day”.
If we were to be taken in for the above, and we try to explain the situation, the authorities or the officers concern may just respond, “you tell this to the court then” and there it goes…..
Can the definitions of the misreport be clearly spelled out instead of simply laying out your actions against any news portals?
By the way, why only single out news portals? What about printed medias? We mean, your printed medias? They also tend to misreport too.
