Editor’s Note
by by Siu Tzyy Wei, Lead Editor - Maritime Crescent Desk
Authority often hides in the wires - in the systems we trust, the signals we consume and the rules that shape them.
This week, the Maritime Crescent team explores how power flows through technology, finance and communication in ways that are less visible but deeply consequential. As Brunei’s digital drive leaves media literacy in the shadows, Indonesia’s central bank mandate bends under political weight, and Malaysia’s floodgates are struggling to push against sweeping powers over speech.
Together, they remind us that progress without discernment is fragile, and that the lines of authority - coded, legislated or broadcasted - require sharper scrutiny.
Indonesia 🇮🇩
Lender of First Resort
by Rayhan Prabu Kusumo, in Jakarta
On June 4, the Indonesian parliament passed a revision to the financial sector law that hands Bank Indonesia a new job. Under the revised Financial Sector Development and Strengthening law (UU P2SK), the central bank is now responsible for supporting real-sector growth and employment, on top of guarding the rupiah and prices. Foreign money was leaving and the rupiah broke through the psychological barrier of Rp 18,000 per US dollar. The government’s answer to that loss of confidence was to weaken the independence that makes the central bank worth trusting.
The old mandate was narrow. Bank Indonesia was to safeguard the value of the rupiah and keep inflation in check, and to do so in support of sustainable growth. Growth sat in the background as the purpose of stability rather than a goal of its own. In light of Prabowo’s 8% growth target, a new clause in the revised version directs the bank to create conditions for the real economy and for jobs, and other provisions widen the government’s reach into the bank’s own decisions.
These additional mandates are not unusual nor alarming. The US Federal Reserve answers and manages both prices and employment. A growth mandate would be defensible for Bank Indonesia in a calm year. The problem is what it is paired with and when it lands; the new duty to deliver growth arrives at the same moment the government gains more say over the bank’s decisions, and at a moment when the bank’s credibility is the main institution holding the currency up.
When prices are rising but jobs are scarce, an independent bank can hold interest rates high and defend the rupiah. A bank also ordered to deliver growth, and now under closer government control, will feel pressure to cut them instead, because lower rates spur hiring even as they push the currency down further.
Indonesia has run this arrangement before. Under the 1968 law, the central bank was an agent of development and the keeper of the state’s accounts, an instrument of whatever the government wanted built. After the downfall of Suharto, independence was written into law in 1999 on purpose, because a bank that prints for the government’s plans is part of how the country had reached that point. Misbakhun, the lawmaker who chairs the commission that steered the revision, has called it a return to the bank’s New Order role — approvingly, though it reads better as a warning.
There is a fair case on the other side. Some economists read the wider law as useful, capable of deepening Indonesia’s thin capital markets and drawing some foreign money back, and parts of it may do exactly that. But independence does not work like the other provisions. It cannot be added back later by regulation, because it is a reputation, built slowly and priced daily, and far easier to spend than to rebuild. The test will come with the first hard decision. When inflation and the growth target pull against each other, the rate Bank Indonesia sets will read either as its own call or as the President’s. The region’s investors will know the difference, and they will be reading for it.
Rayhan has a background in government affairs and public policy, with experience across government institutions and advisory firms. His work focuses on the intersection of geopolitics, policy, and risk, with expertise in advocacy, regulatory analysis, and stakeholder engagement. He holds a degree in Government from Universitas Padjadjaran, and has completed an exchange at Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Spain, focusing on global politics and sustainability.
Malaysia 🇲🇾
The MCMC Floodgates
by Farah
On 12 June, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) released a consultation paper on proposed targeted amendments to the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA). The changes aim to keep the law relevant amid rapid technological shifts and evolving market practices. Key proposals include stronger investigative powers for the regulator and a new statutory right for individuals and businesses to sue those who breach the Act.
Since its inception, the CMA has been controversial. Today, its reach extends far beyond telecoms to include social media platforms, satellite operators, network and infrastructure providers, equipment-related businesses, and digital infrastructure players. In practice, it gives the MCMC sweeping authority over nearly every aspect of Malaysia’s communication ecosystem.
Critics argue the CMA undermines free expression, especially through Section 233. This provision criminalizes any communication which is “obscene, indecent, false, menacing or grossly offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person”. The Federal Court has upheld it as constitutional, saying it protects individuals from harm. This has only further empowered the government to tighten its control over online content, most recently by wielding the CMA against the dissemination of materials related to race, religion and royalty (3R), particularly those that are provocative, insulting, or that incite hatred or could trigger public tension.
The most contentious proposal is Section 46A, known as the “Deeming Provision”. It empowers the Communications Ministers to bypass normal registration and simply declare that certain platforms are automatically regulated by the MCMC. In January 2026, this was used to classify all social media and internet messaging service providers with more than 8-million user threshold. But with rumors on removing the 8-million user threshold rising, such a reality would give MCMA power to regulate virtually any platform, raising concerns about arbitrary authority and free speech.
The real-life impact of the Communications and Multimedia Act is increasingly apparent, with MCMC ordering more content takedowns each year. Although it is imperative to acknowledge that online harms must be curtailed and that the regulator has a duty to oversee such dangerous content, caution must still be exercised to ensure the constitutional right to freedom of speech is upheld. The broad and volatile provisions in the CMA must be judiciously confined to draw clear boundary lines of the MCMC’s scope of power.
Farah is an external TAF contributor.
Brunei Darussalam 🇧🇳
The Other Literacy
by Lily
Amid Brunei’s push to strengthen digital literacy, the national discussion around media literacy has remained conspicuously muted and, at times, been neglected. Perhaps, media literacy is a blind spot that matters more than its digital counterpart.
Media literacy is the capacity to think critically about what people see, share and believe online. It simultaneously helps people to make better, well-informed decisions through weighing sources. In contrast, digital literacy is the ability to operate and access the tools themselves. For instance, navigating a device or app, and creating information safely using digital technologies. One fixates on judgement while the latter concerns access. Ideally, the two deserve equal weight, since championing one over the other is ultimately counterproductive.
The government’s investment in digital literacy is undoubtedly reasonable. Schools have been substantially upgraded with well-equipped interactive digital devices, hybrid learning, and IT embedded in the curriculum, all with the intention of preparing future readiness among students. Despite getting the youth confident with technology, it is not the same as teaching them to question what it shows them. The difficulty arises precisely when fluency in using technology is mistaken for the ability to understand what appears on it.
This gap that has been left open invites a less comfortable reading. Unlike digital fluency, media literacy is, by nature, subjective. It teaches and encourages people to form their own views and to accept that others will differ. This openness shades into free expression, a value the state has tended not to encourage, which may explain some of the silence. Additionally, it also asks citizens to question sources, weigh claims, and trust their own judgement over received authority. A population that is good at utilising information but not at questioning it is easier to govern. One need not assume the reason because it is deliberate; whether by neglect or by quiet preference, ignorance has a way of serving those who rule.
None of this means the digital push is misguided. Rather, it is incomplete. A citizenry can be wired, connected and skilled, yet still be unable to understand the depths of a message. Advancements with technological skills without discernment is not progress, but only a quicker way to be led.
Lily is an external TAF contributor.
Editorial Deadline 20/06/2026 11:59 PM (UTC +8)
