MALAYSIA WILL BECOME A PARIAH NATION! Civil society condemn Zahid's plan to censor the Internet

KUALA LUMPUR― The Home Minister's plan to block unapproved content on websites and YouTube is “regressive” and could pave the way for potential abuse of power, civil rights activists said.

Lawyer Eric Paulsen described the plan as a return to “the government knows best” approach where Malaysians are not given the opportunity to judge for themselves.

He also cautioned that this form of censoring could eventually spread beyond its screening purpose.

“I think it's a slippery slope, once you start censoring some films on the Internet... it'll snowball and affect other content. I don't think we should allow this.

“It would certainly infringe on an individual's right to freedom of information, freedom of expression and freedom of speech,” the co-founder of Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) said.

Even if the government wants to push ahead with the firewall, they should only block content which can lead to a high threshold of “serious harm”, Paulsen said, adding that no one is likely to object to content such as child pornography and videos promoting terrorism.

There should also be an avenue for content owners to appeal to the Home Ministry if their content is blocked, he said.

Suaram executive director Yap Swee Seng also called the firewall method “regressive” and an obstacle to Malaysians making informed choices on the economic and political situation through access to freely circulating information, besides also hampering Malaysia's bid to become a developed nation.

The idea of setting up a firewall is for us a regressive measure to restrict access to information and also restrict freedom of expression,” he told Malay Mail Online when contacted earlier this week.

Yap said the firewalls are not effective, further voicing his worry that it could be “easily abused” by authorities to protect themselves from public criticism.

“There are technological advances every day and many countries have tried firewalls and it doesn't really work but the main concern is the government is using this as an excuse to filter information to cover up their wrongdoings and to filter information based on their political interests rather than interests of the country,” he added.

Yap noted that the Film Censorship Board was already arbitrarily stopping the public from watching films even in offline public screenings, highlighting the case of Pusat Komas staff Lena Hendry who was charged for showing a documentary titled No Fire Zone: The Killing Fields of Sri Lanka which did not receive the board's approval.

“Let the people themselves judge what information is suitable or not for them,” he said, having also noted earlier that many activists and NGOs including Suaram rely on YouTube to spread information.

Anna Har, the FreedomFilmFest director, similarly advocated for Malaysians to be independent-minded and allowed to tap into information to make informed decisions, saying that censorship would put the country in the same category reputation-wise as “repressive regimes” like China and North Korea.

She also questioned the censorship procedures, pointing out that abuses could easily happen.

“There is also the question of control; who decides on what needs to be censored, who carries it out, are they truly independent? Can their decisions be questioned or challenged? What are the guidelines for censoring?

“All these have also got to be outlined and detailed out very clearly in order that it does not lead to abuse and become counter productive to its 'noble' aims,” she told Malay Mail Online when contacted.

Under the current Film Censorship Act, there is too much room for discretionary exercise of power, Har said, saying this has led to complaints that the law is “enforced arbitrarily and can be abused for political interest.”

“With reference to the experience of the implementation of the current Film Censorship Act, the guidelines are too general and all encompassing and very much at the personal discretion of the board of censors and home minister who has the final say if a film is banned,” said Har, who is also the executive director of Pusat Komas.

Instead of seeking to “control” information available online ― which is an impossible and impractical task ― the government should instead allow Malaysians to have greater exposure to the information, she said.

“It would be impossible for any government to 'protect' its citizens from the web. In fact the government would do better to expose, educate and socialise its citizens on how to decipher and sieve through the barrage of information coming from different sources, in all its subjectivity and sensationalism and to develop their own internal censorship mechanism to sieve through and choose information that they find suitable and useful for themselves.

“Therefore, I call upon the home minister to rethink his plan to censor YouTube [and the] web and also to repeal the present Film Censorship Act or at least revamp the guidelines to reduce its jurisdiction to just the work of rating films for sex and violence according to age groups,” she later added.

Last Sunday, Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said his ministry is working with the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) to set up a firewall on websites, including YouTube, to ensure content which does not adhere to guidelines set by the Film Censorship Board is not viewed by Malaysians.

Ahmad Zahid said the censorship board had a social and religious responsibility to ensure that films adhere to guidelines and to prevent the public from being influenced by negative elements in certain films.

Under Putrajaya’s 10-point Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) Bill of Guarantees mooted in the 1990s, the government pledged that it will not censor the Internet, but also said that anyone who spreads illegal content online would still have to face the law.

Since stepping into office last year, Communications and Multimedia Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Shabery Cheek had said the government will not censor the internet. - Malay Mail