IAF

IAF Replication Kota Kinabalu 2024: Safeguarding Democracy in the Digital World

The Beginning

From 21 to 22 December 2024, an IAF Replication workshop was held in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, to discuss and unravel the concept of fake news within the context of democracy today. I had the wonderful opportunity to join in the two-day workshop as a participant. Organised and moderated by Rahman Imuda, the workshop was designed more as a focus group comprised mostly of university students and recent graduates aged 19-25. We were inducted into the workshop through an early ice breaking session that utilises the Werewolf game. The game’s unique dynamics encouraged unfamiliar participants to open up and start conversations with each other. The impact was particularly evident during the later sessions, where almost everyone was actively speaking out and collaborating to present their ideas and opinions.

Day 1: Exploring Fake News and Building Awareness

As with any other workshop with specific topics, it is always important to set up foundational knowledge in the beginning of the session. We made an effort to interpret “fake news” and explored its various forms of manifestations, ranging from ridiculous, unfounded claims distributed via messenger app broadcasts to strategically-engineered disinformation campaigns targeting certain groups or individuals. We did agree on two things: that fake news is definitely a prevalent phenomenon and that it has even penetrated into our most mundane conversations in the presence of social media.

In an era where we start to rely more on social media as an alternative source for news and updates, the integrity of mainstream media has also gone under scrutiny. Existing media discourses often point out how propagandist and interest-driven news by mainstream media can be. Taking that into consideration, we then did a media mapping exercise where we classify every news outlet and sources familiar to us into four (4) categories: 1) factual with high impact; 2) factual with low impact; 3) fake news with high impact; and 4) fake news with low impact. The exercise required us to write names of the news outlet on sticky notes and then put them on to any of the four quadrants according to our own assessment.

Most interestingly, the outcome reveals “factual with high impact” as the quadrant with the most sticky notes attached to it. Rahman Imuda—the facilitator—made an interesting observation about the concept of confirmation bias, which basically refers to the tendency of ours, as human beings, to seek and believe information that corroborates our existing beliefs.

The second half of the day was allocated specifically for brainstorming and collaborative activities. First, we were divided into four groups and given the task to come up with start-up initiatives focusing on combating fake news in society. And second, we were given the opportunities to pitch our group’s proposal in front of the others with the sole purpose of convincing them to “invest” in our ideas. Each of us was given a piece of paper that was valued at around 1 million ringgit in advance, and we were free to invest in any group except our own with the paper. Such a system allowed us to actually channel our competitive spirit into richer group discussions and brainstorming sessions.

Subsequently, we were also introduced to Germany’s Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (NetzDG) law, a pioneering legislative effort to regulate online platforms in tackling hate speech and fake news. After a brief introduction to the law, we discussed the relevance and feasibility of such legislative initiative if applied in different contexts, and whether similar bills or laws already exist in Malaysia and Indonesia—where we, the participants, come from. As a matter of fact, there is no exact replica of the NetzDG in both Malaysia and Indonesia, but they do have similar laws: Section 233 of the Communication and Multimedia Act (CMA)—or commonly known as “Akta Sakit Hati” (Hurt Feelings Act)—in Malaysia and Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law in Indonesia. Both are continuously facing criticism from rights groups for its broad definition that leaves room for arbitrary interpretations from the authorities and the possibilities of misuse by the authorities to silence critics of the government. Following the discussion, we were once again split into 2 (two) groups to prepare for tomorrow’s debate—where we would argue whether a hypothetical country named ‘MARVEL’ should adopt similar laws.

Day 2: From the Grand Debate to Farewell, My Friends

On the second day, after a brief refresher session, we delved immediately into a parliamentary debate we had prepared for the night before. As previously mentioned: we were divided into two groups: Kerajaan (government) and Pembangkang (opposition). I got assigned to be a member of the Pembangkang faction, which was honestly a bit easier to manage since most of us—an idealistic group of university-educated youth—already stood in principle against the implementation of the law, anyway. However, it was still a good exercise to have our ideas and principles constantly challenged, to go beyond our own understanding and prevent us from being trapped in our own echo chamber. The debate was not an entirely solemn affair, though. We did have fun impersonating and reinventing political personalities to get more immersed in the session.

Unfortunately, the agenda of the second day only lasted until noon. Following the debate, we held a reflection session where we looked back on what we had learned from the entire workshop—what it means for us now that we are equipped with more knowledge about fake news and its implications on democracy as well as how such knowledge can be distributed incrementally through our own channels of networks. All things considered, the workshop becomes a notable experience in our memories, not only for its wisdom, but also the friendships we made along the way.