Matt Jones's List: SouthEastAsia

• The World Bank would like to clarify its position regarding the Institutional Development Fund (IDF) Grant for the Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (TRC), Sri Lanka. The signed grant agreement which came into effect in 2009 has no provision or scope to utilize these funds to implement an Internet censorship program as implied by the Sunday Times lead story titled “Chinese here for cyber censorship… [World Bank funding] does not include any provisions or scope to include Internet censorship and the Bank would not approve any such provision.

• However, the TRC is currently headed by an outright apparatchik of the President. Even before, the TRC – a public institution - outrageously violated its own guiding principles by allowing the President’s Office to send, on two occasions, unsolicited SMS’s to all mobile subscribers in Sri Lanka. No action was taken by the Elections Commissioner at the time to reign in this abuse. Even post-war, sites like news.tamilcanadian.com and Tamilnet.com remain blocked without any legal injunction from ISPs in Sri Lanka. The fear of a partisan TRC acting as an extension of Executive whim to impose arbitrary and ill-defined measures to control and censor independent media online are therefore real and warranted.

   

  In this context, we should demand from the World Bank that the grant be withdrawn unless the TRC is democratised and all censorship is stopped. Saying that the grant is not directly for censorship is not good enough.

• On February 5 an unidentified man was arrested for comments he posted to a webboard. His house was searched, his computer confiscated as evidence, his family frightened, and friends panicked. These are ordinary people who express opinions that the authorities consider dangerous, and the mainstream media never allows. The Internet is their only outlet.

   

  The police released this man on February 6, told him to stop making comments on webboard, and they will let the case go away quietly. They also expect no protest or any political attention to his brief detention.
• How many other cases there are there like this one? It is a perfect method of intimidation and creating fear without having to do the paper work to the end, not having to bother the court, and without public attention. Many Thais now say they will withdraw from the internet exchanges, at least for a long while.

• The government announced last month (Jan 2010) that they would set up a committee to oversee the cases to prevent the abuses of the law. During the past year, the convictions in three cases were severe (18, 10 and 7 years of prison). One of the prisoners has a serious medical problem requiring surgery, but her request to see a specialist was denied by the prison authority and by the court on the ground that her crime (LM) is serious.

   

  A dozen more people were arrested, charged for lèse majesté, either by the lèse majesté law or under the Computer Crimes Act 2007 which is a lèse majesté law in disguise. The CCA has not been used against pornography or identity theft but solely for lèse majesté. Four recent arrests were for translating news from Bloomberg about the monarch’s health, for spreading so-called “inauspicious rumours” after the downturn in the Thai stock market.

   

  An unconfirmed source reports there are about 200 lèse majesté cases in court at the moment. We can imagine how widespread the intimidation and fear is.
• eanwhile Thai authorities intensify their propaganda to justify the lèse majesté. Their repeated arguments are the following: 1) The monarchy in Thailand is so unique and special that no other country and their laws can be useful to compare. Thaland's lèse majesté laws and their application are therefore unique. 2) The Thai monarch cannot protect the institution itself. He cannot file a suit against anybody, therefore the state has to defend the monarchy.

• 1) The Thai human right groups are dominated by the seniors who supported and assisted the royalist coup in 2006. They remain absolutely silent on lèse majesté issue.

   

  2) The international human rights bodies are very bureaucratic. They take info and recommendations from their local representatives then say and do (nothing) likewise. To their credits, after years of silence and refusal to take any action, in December 2009 Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch finally issued statements regarding the human rights situation in Thailand. The lèse majesté issue was included in their reviews. We hope to see an explanation for this long-overdue action.

   

  3. The attitudes of both the local and international human rights bodies regarding the lèse majesté law in Thailand are troubling. Only two points would suffice: A) They consider the Thai monarchy as champion of human rights. B) They do not consider the lady who got 18 year conviction for LM as a prisoner of conscience because her strong criticism of the monarchy was a “hate speech”.

3 more annotations...

• A blogger, who had allegedly posted doctored images of Kelantan Mentri Besar, Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat and Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim. The image is reported to have Nik Abdul Aziz having anal intercourse with Anwar.

   

  Kelantan PAS Security Committee, secretary Major (Rtd) Mohamad Ibrahim, lodged a report on the matter on 8 Feb 2010, after discovering the pictures on the Internet on 6 Feb. Johor police chief, Deputy Comm, Mohd Mokhtar Mohd Shariff confirmed the arrest, according to the news report.

   

  According to another news report, the blogger is currently being held under Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act, which relates to improper use of network facilities or network service to comment, request or suggest in a communication which is obscene, false, offensive, or used to abuse, threaten or harass another person.

   

  If convicted, the blogger faces a maximum one year jail term and/or a maximum fine of RM50,000.

• Malaysian blogger, Khairul Nizam Abd Ghani, or “Aduka Taruna”, was recently arrested for allegedly insulting the late Sultan of Johor, Sultan Iskandar ibni Almarhum Sultan Ismail. According to news reports, the Home Minister, Hishammuddin Tun Hussein, said the blogger will not be let off the hook that easily.
• et his case be a lesson to others who think they can express themselves openly without worrying about repercussions… He has been arrested and will have to wait for the Attorney-General’s Chambers to decide on the appropriate action to be taken against him… Even if he apologised to the Sultan or the public for making the insult, my ministry and the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission can still take action against him.
• The blogger was charged on 29 Jan 2010 under Section 233 (1) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, which carries a maximum fine of RM50,000 or one year's jail or both upon conviction. It was reported that Deputy Public Prosecutor, Masri Mohd Daud, proposed bail at RM10,000 with one surety. The blogger's counsel pleaded for a lower surety, and the Sessions Court judge, Zamri Bakar, agreed to reduce bail to RM5,000 with one surety.
• oyalists are very much for Khairul Nizam's prosecution, with an Anti-Aduka Taruna campaign taking place on the blogosphere and on Facebook. Former Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, said bloggers should stick to the facts and write on a basis of truth, rather than insult people. He was reported to have said:

2 more annotations...

• Last February 11 the ministry website published a press release stating the agency's firm stance against the increasing cases of public misconduct on the Internet. It was also mentioned that the Minister of Communication and Information (Menkominfo), Tifatul Sembiring, wishes to regulate Internet Multimedia Content in the country.
• The team's works will include the filing of reports on websites suspected of having “bad” content, verifying these reports, imposing fines, revoking permits, etc.
• The draft regulation is purportedly against pornography and gambling but it may also target social networking sites and other online media tools which are are seen as today's powerful tools in educating the public about free speech and freedom of expression, as well as advocating good governance and democracy.

1 more annotation...