Say No to Censorship

Every editor’s nightmare is not able to publish their magazines and newspapers to the public. An example would be a magazine named ‘Detik’. The magazine, which was based in Malaysia, was deemed to violate the Printing Press and Publication Act 1984 (PPPA) and denied the renewal of publishing license in 2000 on the basis that it failed to fulfil the conditions to have the permit although the truth is it was banned because of its criticism about the government (Human Rights Watch, 2007).

What is PPPA? Well, it is a Malaysian law which is related to the publishing and usage of printing presses in Malaysia. According to Human Rights Watch (2007) regarding PPPA:

…requires all print media to obtain a permit and renew it annually. The Home Affairs Ministry can restrict or ban a publication outright if it is considered "likely to be prejudicial to public order, morality, [or] security"; likely to "alarm public opinion"; or likely to "be prejudicial to . . . national interest." (Article 7(1).) If the Minister refuses to grant or renew a permit, no legal remedy or judicial review is available: "Any decision of the Minister . . . to suspend a license or permit shall be final and shall not be called in question by any court on any ground whatsoever," and "[n]o person shall be given an opportunity to be heard with regard to . . . suspension of the license or permit" according to the act. (Article 13A-13B.)

"You're write what you're told!" (Source: http://www.rockabillytree.com/)
Article 10 of the Constitution of Malaysia clearly stated that every Malaysian citizen has the right to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of association (Helplinelaw.com, 2005). But it was clearly violated when the government misused PPPA. Hence, throughout the years, the Act was urged by many to be amended not only but also to get rid of the registration regime imposed. But it was futile as the Malaysian Home Ministry has used the Act to strike fear among the press and restrict their contents, resulting many sensitive issues unreported in the newspapers. As one of the main sources of information, it is important for the newspapers to report nothing but the truth.

However, another main source of information is not affected by PPPA: Internet. According to Schriver (1997), the difference of affordance produces different functionalities due to the mode’s special features. The affordance of Internet is it can be accessed by anyone from anywhere at anytime and in this case, it is free from PPPA as it does not require license to operate. Such website is Malaysiakini, the leading source of independent news and views in Malaysia. As it is not affected by PPPA, it carries a lot of news articles which are often neglected or censored in the mainstream media. This proves that Internet is the only channel for transparency because it is where the government has no control over it (Dearnley & Feather, 2001).

Does the government has the right to censor? (Source: http://www.huskerhavswrestlingtradingcards.com/)

There are many people from different races, religions and backgrounds in Malaysia. I understand the needs to censor certain issues to avoid riots to happen. But and a huge but, how can we trust our government when they choose not to tell us?



REFERENCES:

Dearnley, J & Feather, J 2001, The wired world, Library Association Publishing, UK

Helplinelaw.com 2005, Constitution of malaysia, viewed 20 October 2007,
<http://www.helplinelaw.com/law/constitution/malaysia/malaysia02.php>

Human Rights Watch 2007, Repressive laws, Human Rights Watch, viewed 20 October 2007,
<http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/malaysia/2000/laws-pppa.htm>

Schriver, KA 1997, Dynamics in document design: creating texts for readers, Wiley Computer Pub., New York, Chapter 6, pp. 361-441