Transparency remains the issue when it comes to digital governance

New Straits Times

14-06-2025

Malaysia's digital governance is at a crossroads, navigating a delicate balance between epistemic sovereignty and potential government surveillance.
Epistemic sovereignty pertains to the imperative of ensuring that its digital policies, historical narratives, and governance models are formulated by Malaysians themselves, rather than being prescribed by Western technology conglomerates, global institutions, or prevailing foreign ideologies.
This encompasses the methodologies employed in data collection, processing, and regulation, as well as the shaping of media, education and national discourse.
The question is no longer just about data security — but who holds the power to shape reality,
Malaysia's digital governance has undergone significant changes over the years, with the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) of 1998 initially designed to foster a dynamic digital economy while promoting responsible online content management.
Over time, however, regulatory mechanisms have been expanded, leading to greater intervention in cyberspace.
The recent introduction of the Data Sharing Act 2025 exemplifies this shift. Designed to facilitate cross-agency access to anonymised datasets, the act aims to streamline governance and improve infrastructure planning.
Yet, critics warn that such data-sharing mechanisms could be repurposed beyond their initial scope, opening the door for expanded digital oversight.
History has shown that when governments gain access to large-scale data, it often leads to broader surveillance under the pretext of security or public order.
Social media, a critical space for political discourse, has also come under increasing scrutiny. Misinformation, fake news and cyber slander pose undeniable risks to national stability.
In response, Malaysia has tightened regulations governing social media platforms, requiring greater cooperation from tech companies in moderating harmful content. There is also growing concern that misinformation laws could become instruments of censorship, restricting dissent and alternative viewpoints.
Amid growing concerns over data collection, Malaysia's major telecommunications companies have reaffirmed their commitment to customer privacy.
A few telcos have issued statements clarifying that any data shared with the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) is strictly anonymised and does not contain personally identifiable information.
These assurances align with Communications Minister Datuk Fahmi Fadzil's statement that the government's request for mobile phone call data is solely for evidence-based policymaking and does not involve tracking individual identities.
Nevertheless, critics argue that once large-scale data collection mechanisms are established, they can be expanded beyond their original purpose, potentially leading to greater oversight of online activities.
The challenge for Malaysia is ensuring that data governance remains transparent and accountable.
Malaysia's commitment to epistemic sovereignty — its capacity to regulate the generation and circulation of knowledge within its borders — has emerged as a pivotal element of its overarching geopolitical strategy within the Global South.
Yet, the push for digital independence must be accompanied by institutional safeguards to prevent the erosion of fundamental freedoms. As Malaysia strengthens its own digital frameworks, the challenge is in ensuring that its pursuit of sovereignty does not align with authoritarian tendencies.
The future of Malaysia's digital policies depends on its ability to balance governance with public trust. If epistemic sovereignty is to be a force for national empowerment rather than an instrument for suppression, several critical steps must be taken.
First, transparency must be a cornerstone of digital governance. The government must publicly disclose the full scope of its data collection protocols, ensuring that anonymisation measures remain intact and protected from misuse.
Second, independent oversight is imperative. Non-partisan commissions must be instituted to scrutinise government-led digital policies, ensuring that misinformation statutes do not metamorphose into instruments of political manipulation.
A governance paradigm that prioritises public accountability will be instrumental in preserving trust in the state's management of digital liberties.
Thirdly, Malaysia must disentangle data surveillance from misinformation regulation. While deceptive narratives and cyber propaganda represent legitimate threats, digital governance must guarantee that misinformation laws do not unduly suppress alternative perspectives.
For Malaysia to truly establish an independent and transparent digital governance model, it must ensure that its digital policies empower open discourse rather than stifle it. Sovereignty should not equate to heightened state control over narratives but rather facilitate an environment where information can flow freely within a framework of accountability.
The question remains whether Malaysia will embrace a transparent and democratic approach to epistemic sovereignty or whether its digital landscape will increasingly reflect patterns of state-led oversight seen across other nations.
The coming years will determine whether Malaysia's digital future aligns with open governance or moves toward centralised control — a decision that will shape the nation's standing in the global discourse on digital freedom.