- 2 hours ago
- #considerthis
The think tank Initiative to Promote Tolerance and Prevent Violence (INITIATE.MY) has recently launched a new open-source database that documents the publications and materials banned by the Home Affairs Ministry under the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA). How has the PPPA been used over the years, and what does it reveal about Malaysia’s changing political and social landscape? On this episode of #ConsiderThis Melisa Idris speaks with Aizat Shamsuddin, Founder and Executive Director of INITIATE.MY and Larissa Ann Louis, Co-Chairperson of the Bar Council’s Committee on Constitutional Law and Human Rights.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:10Hello and good evening. I'm Melissa Idris. Welcome to Consider This.
00:14This is the show where we want you to consider and where you consider what you know of the news
00:18of the day.
00:18The think tank Initiate Malaysia, or its full name, Initiative to Promote Tolerance and Prevent Violence.
00:24Well, they've recently launched a new open source database that has documented the publications and materials banned by the Home
00:33Affairs Ministry
00:34under the Printing Presses and Publications Act, or better known as PPPA.
00:40Now, joining us on the show today to talk a little bit more about how the PPPA has been used
00:45over the years,
00:46as well as what it reveals about Malaysia's changing political and social landscape.
00:51I have with me in the studio, Isaac Shamsuddin, who is the Founder and Executive Director of Initiate Malaysia,
00:57as well as Larissa Anne Lewis, who is the Co-Chairperson of the Bar Council's Committee on Constitutional Law and
01:07Human Rights.
01:08Welcome to the show, both of you. Thank you so much for joining me. I appreciate that.
01:12I want to talk about the database first, because I think it's really quite a feat that you have documented
01:1776 years' worth of banned publications.
01:22That's a long time. So, is it more than 3,200 publications?
01:26Isaac, tell me a little bit about the database.
01:28Yes, sure. Thank you so much, Melissa, for having me.
01:31So, I think it's worth to also understand first what is PPPA, you know, and why are we focusing on
01:38PPPA.
01:38So, I think PPPA is one of the security laws that we have in Malaysia.
01:43So, we have Sedition Act, we have, you know, other types of law that try to control, you know, freedom
01:51of speech and expression.
01:52So, we do have the right to read or express ourselves in writing or in speaking, for example.
02:00But there are limitations to that freedom in the Constitution.
02:04So, this is one of the laws.
02:06So, we think that, I think, when government introduce any laws, there should be a public awareness.
02:13Like, you know, people should know what has been banned, for example.
02:16So, the database is not actually new.
02:21So, KDN actually published what has been banned on their website.
02:26So, what we have done is, like, we found that the quality of the data is not really up to
02:33the standard that, you know, us as a public want to understand.
02:37So, for example, there are gaps on information.
02:41Who are the publishers? Who are the writers?
02:44You know, what's the origin of this publication, for example?
02:47So, we clean the data.
02:49So, using AI and also human moderation.
02:54Yep.
02:55So, we do have a great data scientist, you know, within our team.
02:59So, we polish the database, you know, to make it more, having more details and all that so that people
03:06can access it, read it, and understand what has been banned.
03:10So, yeah.
03:11So, we have all this information now, all the data now.
03:15What is it that you have found from compiling this data?
03:20I'm curious to know, over the years, 76 years, how has censorship been applied in Malaysia during that time?
03:28Yeah. So, there are more than 3,200 banned publications over time, right?
03:37So, what we found is that there are different impositions of reasoning by the Home Ministry of why these certain
03:47publications are being banned.
03:48So, for example, in 1950s, up to until 1970s, for example.
03:54So, at the time, the threat to national security was really, you know, the violent communist insurgency, right?
04:02So, lots of these books, bans have been about that, you know, subversive ideology against revolutionary, you know, movement, for
04:13example.
04:14You know, just to protect, you know, the country from, you know, facing more violence, right?
04:19So, I think it was kind of like justified during that time to focus on this real threat, right?
04:26So, you said 50s to 70s was when that was communism, okay.
04:30So, but later we found there is a difference in reasoning.
04:35So, it's no longer about communism or, you know, subversive ideology, but it's more about morality.
04:42And, you know, this is like in 1980s, you know, early 2000s, for example, until now even, more banning is
04:50based on morality.
04:52So, you see the movement such as Al-Arqam or, you know, like now known as GISB, for example, Al
05:02-Mauna, for example, or, you know, other religious publications.
05:07And not to mention, you know, sexual minorities like LGBT, they have also been, you know, the frontal justification of
05:15why these publications have been moved forward.
05:19Right. Larissa, you've also looked at the trend of this. Tell me what you've observed.
05:25How much, I want to pick up on where Isaac left off about the changes in the reasoning for banning
05:33publications.
05:34What's been your observation?
05:35I think the Malaysian Bar, our position has always been for the PPPA to be no longer there.
05:42Abolished.
05:43Yeah, abolished, gone with. Because the same reasoning 70 years ago is still being used today.
05:48And that, a trend, yeah, probably, because nothing has changed.
05:53The same reasoning, national security, morality, public order, you know, these are the frequent justifications that were given.
06:01Now, the issue with these justifications, it is up to interpretation, right?
06:06Because in the case laws, there are no specific definition on what exactly constitutes national security or morality.
06:16Can I just delve deeper into that? Maybe you can tell us the legal framework, how this law is applied
06:22and how the bans are usually enforced.
06:25Does it, is it very specific? Does it spell out what is considered a threat?
06:30What is considered the threshold for banning a publication or any material?
06:36Yeah. Okay, so just an overview. Freedom of speech, of course, Article 10.
06:41Of the constitution.
06:42Of the constitution.
06:42It's protected.
06:43It's not absolute.
06:44Because in our constitution, it says that it can be restricted if it's in relation to national security, public order,
06:55morality or international relations.
06:58Now, again, like I said, national security, very broad, very diverse concept.
07:03It's also in the law, in definitions of it, the courts have taken different approaches.
07:08Because at the end of the day, it's the discretion.
07:11It's on the absolute discretion of the minister to decide if something is a threat to national security or whatnot.
07:18The discretion of the home minister.
07:20Yes.
07:20One person decides.
07:21So, that's where the issue is.
07:24So, in 2012, there was an amendment to the PPPA that allows this discretion to actually be reviewed in courts.
07:31So, that's where judicial reviews came about.
07:34And the most recent with the two books by Gerak Budaya in April, that was banned.
07:40And then they filed a judicial review.
07:41But then after the big hoo-ha, it was revoked.
07:45The ban was revoked.
07:46So, the judicial review didn't go on.
07:48So, that gives the public an avenue for some sort of answer on why this was done.
07:56Which is very important.
07:57Because it moves away from the discretion of the minister of why something was considered a public national security.
08:06Yeah.
08:07Right?
08:07It can just be anything.
08:08What's reasonable?
08:09What's unreasonable?
08:11Absolutely.
08:12The interpretation is too broad.
08:13And that's why the bar has always been, you know, this act is no longer needed.
08:18And it's also, it was in the 80s when this act came about, right?
08:22And publications there were so different.
08:23And now we are online, you know.
08:25Yes.
08:25Digital era is a whole different thing.
08:28And technically, it doesn't cover it.
08:29But there are proposed amendments to cover digital publication as well in the PPPA.
08:35Oh, so to strengthen the PPPA as opposed to more discretion, more power on the permits, on licensing,
08:43and not just on books because it covers more than that, right?
08:46On the media and all of that.
08:48Wow.
08:48Okay.
08:49Can I come back to you, Aizat, when you talked about the changes in the reasoning for banning publications?
08:58What I've noticed is that the ban doesn't actually occur in a steady rate.
09:02There are waves when the bans occur.
09:05So can you talk to me a little bit about your, I guess, hypothesis when you've been putting this database
09:10together?
09:11What do you think explains surges or peaks of banning publication?
09:16What do you think that tells us about the, I guess, changing political priorities or the changes in what society
09:26or the state considers acceptable or unacceptable?
09:30Yeah.
09:30So I think something like what Larissa has mentioned is that, you know, national security or security threats is always
09:38changing, right?
09:39And emerging.
09:40You know, we don't know what will happen in the future.
09:42You know, probably now we talk about AI threats, you know, cyber threats, for example.
09:46So during this period, for example, you know, the emergence of, you know, subversive groups, you know, groups that are
09:54critical of government or anti-government, for example,
09:58they are seen, you know, by the authorities as a threat during that time.
10:02But, I mean, again, you know, I really want to emphasize also like we are on the same page with
10:08Bar Council,
10:08where I think, you know, if you want to control a certain population of the society, their mindset or their
10:17behaviors, for example,
10:19you don't really need, you know, a security law that punished and penalized, you know, the printers, readers, you know,
10:28all of these, you know, people.
10:30So I think, because I think at the end of the day, you need a test, a proportionality test, you
10:40know, whether that is considered a real harm or a real threat.
10:46Even if, I mean, to me, the real threats at Initiate is, you know, for example, terrorist threats.
10:52So those are real threats. So if you want to control expressions of people from being influenced by these ideologies,
10:59then, you know, you need to consider this, you know, test of whether it's a real threat or not.
11:06Okay. How do we know about this, this proportionality test? What constitutes that?
11:12From a legal standpoint, Larissa, may I ask you, when the government says, when a government says, you know,
11:19there's a national security threat or a public order threat, what evidence or what thresholds need to be passed,
11:28need to be proven or produced before a ban is justified? What does that constitute?
11:33Like, does it need to be a demonstrable risk or is a perceived or potential risk enough to be considered
11:40justifiable?
11:41Yeah. So if I would just to read verbatim of Section 7 of the Act, right, they are very vague.
11:49Definitions, you know, it goes on which is or is likely to be contrary to any law or is otherwise
11:56predation to or is likely to be predation to public interest or national interest.
12:02He may in his absolute discretion. So there is a lot of very, the interpretation is so vague.
12:09So I'll just highlight two cases. Okay. So under the federal constitution and of course the international human rights standard
12:15for restrictions on freedom of expression,
12:18it has to obviously be prescribed by law. So a clear statutory authority. It has to be necessary.
12:24So no speculative or hypothetical. It has to be proportionate. So balance against fundamental rights.
12:31Very important. So in short, the government has to show real, imminent, demonstrable harm to national security and not just
12:38moral disapproval or political inconvenience, which we can see.
12:43So evidence is required. What evidence really depends on the interpretation of the court.
12:49So the two cases, one of it is on the It's Okay to be Gay, that book, right?
12:56The book, yes. I remember.
12:57So it went to court. The evidence required there was a possible risk to morality or public order, right?
13:05There was no direct proof of harm needed.
13:08So possible risk is enough.
13:09Yes. In this case, the courts defer to ministerial discretion if a reasonable minister could justify the ban.
13:18That was their threshold. A reasonable minister could justify it.
13:23Wow.
13:23Yeah. And the other case where the issue on the book, I forgot the name of the book, the one
13:31in Indonesia,
13:32and there was a protest, there was a foreign protest there, and they brought a judicial review here.
13:37However, in that case, the ban was lifted because they said you must show domestic harm, not just foreign protests,
13:46evidence of actual impact on Malaysian society.
13:49So in that case, you see, same cases, same law, but different interpretations.
13:54So just so that I understand correctly, so if a minister, the whole ministry decides to ban a publication or
14:00a book,
14:01it's only if it's challenged in courts that the ban can be reversed.
14:07Is that the only avenue to challenge a ban?
14:09So that will be part of our what can we do better, is to actually have conversations instead of going
14:17through a straight-on ban on why something cannot be published.
14:21You know, to actually explain to the publisher, this is what is happening, what can we do about this, rather
14:26than a straight-off ban.
14:27Okay, it's missing a step.
14:29Yeah, definitely. So it really restricts the freedom of speech there.
14:33So just to give you a little practical view on how it is, right, so under Section 7,
14:40what happens is the enforcement can involve the authorities identifying and reviewing a publication first.
14:46So they get the book, they review it, they talk about it.
14:49One of the case, I think the recent case, they took a few months after reading the book,
14:53and then they issued the order, the prohibition order, and then taking action against people or businesses with this book
15:01at hand that they are being distributed.
15:04And the actual scope of the prohibition really depends on the wording of the order that was given.
15:10Now, this is the proper steps to be taken.
15:12But there were some cases that were brought in judicial review.
15:16Side note, judicial review, you only have three months time frame from the date of an order.
15:20Ah, there is a time limit, yes.
15:21You can apply for extension of time, but that is really on the discretion of the court.
15:26So in that case, they reviewed it based on the procedure issue.
15:33So they confiscated the books before getting the order.
15:38So the rate was done, and three weeks later, only the order was given.
15:42So that was wrong, so that case was not allowed.
15:45Posted.
15:46Yeah, because they didn't follow the sequence that was given in the Act.
15:50I think I would like to ask both of you, I guess, back to this basic question.
15:57Why bans?
15:59Why ban a publication?
16:01Do bans actually work?
16:03What does it actually do?
16:05What do we know about what banning a book does?
16:11Before I respond to that, I want to add on to what Larissa has said.
16:15So I think one of the loopholes in the law, the PPA law, is that there is not enough check
16:21and balance, right?
16:22So the absolute discretion of the minister itself, it's kind of problematic.
16:30In a democratic world like ours, we need to make sure that everyone is being checked, regardless of whichever minister.
16:40So ministers, it doesn't matter which party, coalition that they come from, they could exploit and abuse this law for
16:50their political purposes, right?
16:52So we don't want that.
16:53So I think what Larissa has mentioned is that judicial check on the PPPA implementation.
16:59But also I would add, you know, that, you know, a political and social pressure is also a part of
17:05that, you know, check and balance.
17:07So what happened in that Shamsia Fakir book, and also I think Mustafa Akil's book, you know, Islam Without Extremes,
17:15you know, as if you can, if you hear the name of the book, what's wrong about that book?
17:20And I've read that book, you know, it's about reconciliation of, you know, human rights, democratic values within Islam itself.
17:27So I don't think it's a harm to the society, but it's been revoked, you know, after that.
17:31So it's kind of like the system of revocation is something that we should talk about as well.
17:37So how the discretion to ban is also a discretion to revoke, right?
17:41So there should be like a layer of scrutiny in that power process.
17:46But again, if we assume that PPPA should go on, right?
17:49Yeah, that's the assumption that the law will not get repealed.
17:54Yes. So no, I'm responding to your questions.
17:56Is it really effective though?
17:58So I think it's a double-edged sword, right?
18:02So what I've been telling people is that we need a culture of, you know, people who read, right?
18:08So that's something that is very lacking in our society, which we need more.
18:12So in the era of like hate speech, disinformation on social media, for example, people are very much exposed to
18:18short clips, bites and all that.
18:20So, and then they believe in it.
18:22Books actually give more comprehensive, critical analysis.
18:26Even though you don't agree with the writers, with the ideas that have been put forward, for example, you can
18:32debate, you know, you can disagree with it.
18:34You write another book, for example, to debunk whatever.
18:38So that's a culture that we want to have, not resorting to immediate ban or like, you know, or violence
18:45against writers, vigilante, for example.
18:48That's not what we want.
18:49Right, yeah.
18:50Larissa, do you have anything to add to that in terms of whether or not bans work and to what
18:56end?
18:56Because my experience of banning a publication or a material is that you actually highlight it.
19:03Much like disinformation, you bring more focus to a book that's been banned and you bring it to kind of
19:12mainstream consciousness as opposed to, you know, having the book on a bookshelf, dusty bookshelf somewhere that someone might not
19:18notice.
19:19What's been your observation, Larissa?
19:21I agree.
19:21I mean, if it's a hot kettle, don't touch it.
19:23We won't want to touch it, right?
19:26So I think if the objective of the ban is just to get the books off bookshops, yeah, probably it
19:33works, yeah, because you don't see it in the bookshops anymore.
19:36But about the ideas that people who have already read these books, it's already planted there.
19:41And interestingly, the book that I mentioned just now, the Indonesian book, it was called When I Was a Kid
19:46Three.
19:46So that book was a book derogatory to Indonesian workers.
19:51So they said it was harmful to public interest and national interest.
19:55So interestingly, these few books that we talk about, the banning, right, it was banned like nine years after publication.
20:02Seven years after it had been distributed.
20:04It's not immediate.
20:05No.
20:06When the books have already been on the shelf, have been sold, have even had different additions to it, you
20:11know, even the two recent ones in April.
20:13Yeah.
20:13So it's not an immediate thing.
20:15So people already have read it, known it.
20:18If they're so worried about the ideas that they take off it, it's already there.
20:21So whether a ban would work or not, and now with e-books, I can't remember the last time I
20:26actually held a proper physical book.
20:29And it doesn't govern digital books.
20:32So there's a loophole there as well.
20:34Why do you think that is?
20:35Why do you think that books sometimes get banned years after it's been in circulation?
20:43Probably a report happens.
20:44Someone highlights it.
20:46It's only that when someone highlights it.
20:48Correct.
20:49Okay.
20:49Like a police report, like 50 police reports against, like that's how the Sedition Act works, right?
20:53There is an online comment.
20:55Many people, I don't know, they gang up or say, let's make a police report to this.
20:59Then the police looks into it.
21:00Yeah, I see.
21:02Okay.
21:02All right.
21:03So let's talk about what we would like to see happen next.
21:05I think everyone, both of you have stated that you'd like to see this law be repealed.
21:13But has there been any efforts to that end, to repealing PPPA?
21:18Or at least reducing some of the harms that it is?
21:24And you talked a little bit about ministerial discretion.
21:26So Larissa, can I ask you what you would like to see in terms of how the government reconsiders
21:32how it, quote unquote, regulates publications today?
21:36Yeah, I think Aizab would agree with the Bar because the PPPA has been around for many,
21:40many years.
21:41And that's why the Bar has issued various statements to say that this law should no longer be.
21:46Now, what worried the relevant stakeholders was the recent proposed amendments to further
21:54make it more restricted, you know.
21:57So, like, despite the commitment of the current government, you know, towards this freedom
22:01of speech and expression, right, the main pillars of a democratic country, the proposed
22:07amendments actually aim at addressing specific offence involving the three R's, race, religion,
22:12and royalty, including the power to restrict or ban publications seen to be touching on
22:17these topics which are deemed sensitive.
22:19And also to add further on digital online spaces, you know, so it will cover more.
22:23So instead of pushing for the abolishment of it or the repealing of the Act, it's being
22:30further enhanced to restrict this.
22:34Now, of course, that will be our first stage of answer of, like, not having this Act at
22:40all, right, but in the alternative, if the Act is there, yeah, what can we do?
22:44I think it's a...
22:45Sorry, may I just interrupt you very quickly?
22:46Do we need this Act for national security purposes?
22:49I do not think we need this Act for national security.
22:52Okay, all right.
22:53Yeah, I think the Bar has been very consistent on that since the very beginning.
22:57It's not required.
22:58I mean, we are a democratic country.
23:00We have this right and we should be able to speak.
23:02And what Aizad has said, I think we are lacking that debate, that discussion, that dialogue
23:09with relevant people.
23:10We need to be more open-minded to hear what other people say and not feel offended by it.
23:15We should be able to agree to disagree on things.
23:18Yes, 100%.
23:19I'm sorry, I interrupted you.
23:20What would you like to see the government do better in this current law?
23:23So if this law is there, a more transparent, evident-based, proportionate system, you know,
23:27we need to know why was it banned.
23:29And have that discussion, have that in-between gap before a ban, or have that in-between
23:37mechanism before us, before requiring the publishers to go to court.
23:42Court is expensive, you know, it's strategic litigation, you know, you want to find out
23:46why, and you are trying to also challenge the courts to come up with interpretations that
23:52would actually help the constitution, our fundamental liberties, interpretation of freedom
23:57of expression, because this will be part of the conversation in judicial reviews.
24:01You know, we will add that it affects your federal constitution rights.
24:05Clearer statutory standards.
24:08Like I mentioned, opportunities for affected parties to respond, where practical, and mechanism
24:14for independent reviews.
24:15Definitely.
24:16Wonderful.
24:17Thank you, Larissa.
24:18Aizad, if I may end with you, what would you like to see in terms of how the government
24:21reconsiders, quote-unquote, censorship of books?
24:24Yeah.
24:24I have a lot on my bucket.
24:26Okay.
24:26Lay it on me.
24:27In extension to what Larissa has mentioned, is that, I mean, we had this conversation already
24:32during the launch.
24:33And one of the, you know, prominent advocates to review or to abolish PPPA is, like, you
24:40know, shout out to YB Sherezan.
24:42We checked, you know, Hansat, parliamentary Hansat, you know, not a lot of, like, parliamentarians
24:46really talk about it.
24:48So, if you want to enhance the law, scrutiny, whatever, it has to start from the legislature,
24:53right, from the parliament.
24:54So, you don't have to wait until the judicial review, you know, to make sure that this law
24:58is being, you know, scrutinized, you know, abolished or whatever.
25:01So, I think that, you know, even in Pakatan Harapan, who champions reforms, you know, and
25:09all that, they don't see PPPA as a priority of that reform, unfortunately.
25:13So, I think there needs to be an empowerment of parliamentarians across parties, political
25:18parties, you know, whether you are opposition or government, that, you know, this should be
25:23your reform, you know, agenda.
25:25Because there are so many, you know, restrictive laws that already limit freedom of expression
25:33and speech.
25:34You talk about Online Safety Act, you talk about CMA, Sedition Act, a lot of provisions
25:39in the Penal Code that already restrict people from…
25:42They have so many options too.
25:43So, so many.
25:44And another thing that I want to tell, you know, the audience and you guys is that we
25:51work with law enforcement at Initiate.
25:53So, this is a more and more burden and liability on the law enforcement to look out and enforce
26:00this law.
26:01So, you don't force, you don't just legislate and pass the law, right?
26:04So, someone has to implement it.
26:06So, definitely, you need to update your law.
26:10So, you need to take this liability from the shoulder of the law enforcement because,
26:15you know, there's so many work for them to enforce.
26:17Yeah, they have lots of other things to do keeping the country safe.
26:19So, prioritize real harms, prioritize real threats.
26:23So, that's my recommendation.
26:25I said, thank you so much for the work that you've been doing on the database.
26:28And Larissa, both of you, thank you for coming on the show and shedding light on the
26:32harms of censorship to our country.
26:34I appreciate your time.
26:34Thanks for having us.
26:36That's all the time we have for you on this episode of Consider This.
26:39I'm Melissa Idris, signing off for the evening.
26:41Thank you so much for watching.
26:42Good night.
26:42Let's see you then.
26:43All right.
26:43Bye-bye.
26:45Bye-bye.
26:46Bye-bye.
26:49Bye.
26:54Bye-bye.
26:56Bye-bye.