One of the great paradoxes of modern democracy is that it depends on a free press but rarely acknowledges it as a constituent institution of the democratic process.
Parliament, the legislative body, is elected. The executive (the government) draws its power from the king. The independence of the courts is constitutionally protected.
However, the press, crucial to democracy, is left outside this formal architecture and subject to legislative control.
Freedom of speech, a constitutional right, is closely related to media freedom, in Malaysia. But exceptions through laws like the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA) severely limit media freedom.
Yet democracy is not merely about voting – it is about informed participation. Without access to accurate, timely and independent information, the people cannot meaningfully engage in public life.
The media is the only institution with the capacity, reach and responsibility to enable that participation. It connects people to power and provides the scrutiny that keeps democracy honest.
Malaysia’s history reflects this tension. The press has played a vital role in political discourse and reform, but has done so under the shadow of restrictive laws and without institutional support.
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara, CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a regular pledge or periodic auto-donation to Aliran
- Become an Aliran member
For decades, calls for a professional, independent media council were ignored or delayed. Civil society feared government control, and industry players worried about over-regulation. Successive governments used licensing and other laws to maintain a climate of compliance.
As a result, Malaysia’s media remained vulnerable, subject to laws like the PPPA, which prohibits “undesirable publications” and to a legal framework where errors, even unintentional ones, could trigger police investigations.
The absence of a neutral, professional body for complaints and redress meant both the public and the press were poorly served.
The Malaysian Media Council Bill, recently passed by Parliament after extensive consultation, proposes to establish a self-regulating, media-led council. It would be a body tasked not with punishing dissent but with upholding ethics, public accountability and democratic integrity.
The International Federation of Journalists described the passing of the bill as “a monumental step towards independent media regulation in Malaysia”.
There are critical issues with the bill which have been pointed out by the Malaysian Bar and others. However, its passing after four decades of hesitation must be taken as an opportunity to treat the media not as a threat to be controlled, but as a constituent part of a democratic society.
Why a council, and why now?
The idea of a media council in Malaysia has been around for over four decades. Proposals emerged as early as the 1970s, but mistrust and political sensitivity repeatedly stalled progress.
The new bill seeks to fill that gap. For the first time, it provides for a statutory yet independent media council – designed not to control the press but to support and guide it. The goal is to create a trusted platform for ethical standards, professional development and public engagement.
What will the council do?
The council’s main functions are grounded in the idea that journalism is a public good, and that its integrity must be preserved through peer regulation rather than punitive law.
It will:
- Develop and promote a code of ethics to guide media practitioners
- Provide a complaints mechanism that addresses ethical lapses without resorting to court action
- Conduct training, research and public education on responsible journalism
- Serve as a platform for dialogue between media, government and society
- Strengthen public trust in the media through transparent, fair and timely resolutions
Unlike government regulators, the council will not issue fines, revoke licences, or criminalise reporting. It operates through persuasion, peer accountability and the credibility of its findings.
A better path: Learning from the UK’s Leveson Inquiry
Malaysia is not the first democracy to wrestle with the problem of how to regulate the media without undermining its independence.
In the UK, the Leveson Inquiry (2011–2012) was triggered by major press scandals, including illegal phone-hacking by News of the World. The inquiry concluded that the existing system of voluntary self-regulation, via the Press Complaints Commission, had failed.
Leveson recommended a new, independent regulator underpinned by statute -but most major newspapers refused to join the officially recognised body (Impress), instead creating the Independent Press Standards Organisaiton (Ipso), a self-regulator some saw as insufficiently independent.
Malaysia’s proposed model appears more balanced. While established by law, the council will be led and largely elected by media professionals themselves, avoiding the perception of state control. It is a hybrid model that aspires to combine independence, authority and legitimacy.
Who runs the council and who can join?
Membership in the media council is open by application – but with a built-in structure to ensure diversity.
The bill requires representation from key sectors of the media landscape: print, broadcast, online platforms, editors, journalists, media educators and civil society. This ensures the council reflects the full complexity of today’s media ecosystem.
However, since the bill prescribes no limits to the number of members admitted, the council may face operational difficulties in reaching consensus on matters brought before it with the likelihood of differences of opinion becoming the subject of litigation. The plurality of views encouraged by the present provisions may ultimately stifle the council’s effectiveness.
The media council’s work will be overseen by a board of directors. But this board is not autonomous: it is accountable to the council and can act only on resolutions passed by it. Government representation is limited and carefully balanced, ensuring the state cannot dominate the council’s decision-making.
This design promotes professional autonomy while safeguarding public interest. But, as mentioned earlier, the different interests represented in the council may make progress on any matter difficult.
Flag controversy: Missed opportunity for the council
A recent controversy illustrates the need for such a body. A vernacular newspaper accidentally published a Malaysian flag with an error in its design. Though clearly a mistake, the incident triggered a wave of criticism. Staff were suspended and, reportedly, investigated by the police.
This heavy-handed response could have been avoided. A functioning media council could have provided a neutral platform to assess the situation: Was the error deliberate? Were editorial protocols followed? Was a public correction issued?
Had the case been brought before the council, the outcome might have included a formal apology, an internal audit and recommendations for future safeguards – rather than criminal proceedings or media outrage. Such an an approach would have protected the public’s right to accountability while preserving journalistic freedom.
Beyond the law: Ethics, not just legality
Malaysia’s press is already bound by defamation law, contempt rules and the PPPA. So, where will the council fit?
The media council will fill a critical gap. The law determines what is punishable. Ethics determines what is responsible. Many editorial decisions fall in between, neither illegal nor entirely defensible. The council allows these to be addressed transparently, fairly and quickly.
Moreover, the council can incorporate global standards, such as the UK’s Reynolds test, which assesses whether journalists acted responsibly in the public interest. The council can train media professionals in applying such tests, enhancing the quality of journalism while reducing legal exposure.
Missing piece: Government interference
While the bill creates a platform for dialogue, it does not empower the council to resist government interference. One of its functions is “to encourage communication between media practitioners, the Government and the public,” but the scope of that communication is vague.
The absence of a clear mandate to challenge political interference is a limitation. In other countries, media councils have occasionally played a watchdog role over state encroachment.
Whether Malaysia’s council can grow into that function will depend on its credibility, independence and public support.
Building on changes in the legal landscape
The council will not work in legal isolation. Existing and potential legislative provisions lay a strong foundation on which it can carry out its functions.
The Personal Data Protection Act 2010 already recognises a journalistic right to publish in the public interest. A user of personal data, such as a journalist or media organisation is exempted from data protection principles if, taking into account the special importance of public interest in freedom of expression, the intended publication would be in the public interest, and the user reasonably believes that compliance with data protection principle is incompatible with journalistic purposes. These provisions recognise the importance of journalistic purposes to the extent that they override the protection of personal data.
Further, recent developments in Malaysian law bolster the potential of the media council to function effectively and independently. In the landmark Harris Salleh case, the High Court recognised the right to information as part of the constitutional freedom of speech – an interpretation that aligns with the council’s mission to uphold transparency and public access to truth.
The government’s announced intention to introduce freedom of information legislation is yet another factor that strengthens the legal environment for responsible journalism.
Together, these shifts support the council’s role to define ethical standards not in isolation but in dialogue with evolving legal norms. They provide a stronger foundation for the council to establish a meaningful code of conduct and to frame its communications with government not as subservience but as part of a wider democratic discourse on media freedom and public accountability.
Institutionalising the fourth estate
The media council will not end all media disputes. It will not replace the courts nor silence critics.
But it can provide something Malaysia has long lacked: a trusted institution that protects the public’s right to a free, fair and accountable media.
In a democracy, participation is only as meaningful as the information that supports it. A strong media allows people to think, speak freely and act wisely.
The Malaysian media council will serve as a necessary structure in a democratic state.
While the bill stops short of explicitly recognising the press as a democratic institution, it may lay the groundwork for such recognition. By giving the media a formal space within the legal and ethical framework of the country, the bill creates the conditions for something long overdue: the institutionalisation of the press as a legitimate and necessary part of Malaysia’s democratic system.
If allowed to function as intended, the council could evolve from a professional body into a truly civic one – not by law alone but by earning public trust and by defending the values on which democracy itself depends.
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
