The recent police action involving a journalist has been loudly described as intimidation and an attack on press freedom. These concerns should not be dismissed, because journalism plays a critical role in any democracy. However, it is misleading to frame this issue as a simple battle between the media and the state while ignoring an important fact: Cabinet secrecy is not optional.

A Cabinet Memorandum, also known as a Memorandum Jemaah Menteri (MJM), is a classified document. It is officially classified as Secret, and this protection also applies to verbal discussions and decisions made during Cabinet meetings. This rule exists to protect collective responsibility, policy integrity, and the ability of the government to function properly. Without confidentiality, Cabinet decision making would be impossible.

Because of this, possession of an MJM by an unauthorised person is a serious legal issue. This does not change based on who the person is or what motive is claimed. When there is reasonable suspicion that classified Cabinet material may be held by someone without authorisation, standard procedure requires that a police report be lodged and an investigation carried out. Disagreeing with enforcement methods does not remove the obligation to follow the law.

It is fair to question whether a search involving a journalist was heavy handed or whether less intrusive methods could have been used. However, questioning the approach must not be confused with rejecting the need to investigate a possible breach involving classified material. Treating Cabinet secrecy as negotiable sets a dangerous precedent.

This situation also cannot be separated from issues of credibility. The journalist involved is currently facing a separate bribery charge in court, in an unrelated case that he denies and is contesting. The presumption of innocence must be respected. At the same time, it is unrealistic to claim that such background has no relevance at all when serious allegations of persecution and abuse of power are being made in public. Context matters.

The larger concern is how quickly legitimate arguments about media freedom are being used to blur clear legal boundaries. If Cabinet confidentiality is weakened, future governments will struggle to function. Media freedom must be defended, but it cannot be used as a shield against rules that protect national governance. A democracy needs both a free press and firm respect for the law to survive.