Salvar al soldado Ryan (1998)

overview of the laws that affect media content in Malaysia. Media laws in Malaysia are described as “amongst some of the most stringent in the world” (Brown 2005: 40), with 47 laws and ordinances that have been effecting the Malaysian press (Syed Arabi 1988). Some of the most repressive media laws established were the Printing and Presses and Publication Act (PPPA)³⁰, the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Official Secret Act (OSA) (Brown 2005, Crouch 1996, Mohd Azizuddin 2009, Wang 1998, Wang 2001).

These laws impose control on media in various ways including licensing consistent periodic publications, and annual renewal through the PPPA, allowing the arrest of people without detention (the ISA), and limiting investigative reporting and critical commentaries through the OSA (Herbert 2001, Mustafa 2002). Even more oppressively, if journalists are found guilty of investigative reporting, they can be convicted under the ISA (Mustafa 2002).

28

Two important historical events of media control in Malaysia suggest the reasons of such control. First, the communist subversive activities that encouraged the implementation of strict laws of emergency, where the state of emergency can be announced to the public at any time whenever necessary, if national security is considered under threat by the ISA.

Second, the PPPA is still enforced to avoid dissemination of communist messages to the Malayan public though the control of ownership of the mass media (Mohd Safar 1996).

The second event is related to the 13 May riot (1969), after which the state started to enforce other media laws to ensure its power to censor media content deemed a threat to the security of the nation, including inciting racial hate among citizens (Zaharom 2002a). After the riot, all press publication was suspended for two days (Safar 1996).

However, critics observe that PPPA is irrelevant to modern Malaysian media because it was initially implemented to curb communist activities in Malaya (Lent 1975). Through this law, the Home Ministry could deny or suspend the license or permit any publications across Malaysia without excuse (Lent 1975). Thus, the PPPA has been described as draconian (Chandra 1986) and ‘oppressive’ (Lent 1975: 107) and amendments made in 1964 and 1987 suggest worsening restrictions by the government. Means (1996) argued that overall these laws impede the practise of democracy in Malaysia when newspapers are not the voice of the citizens, but are instead the voice of the government in power.

In addition, the ISA does not only allow the state to detain people without trial if they are found to threaten the security of the nation, but in practice it is also “used to block political challenges and intimidate critics” (Crouch 1996: 81). This includes criticism published in the mass media. The OSA further limits the issues that the opposition raise pertaining to any misconduct of the state, suggesting the media ‘report responsibly’ and placing emphasis more on the nation’s development while being less critical of the state (Hilley 2001).

Thus, these laws are argued to be not only tools of political control but also tools of hegemony. Hilley (2001) stresses that through such restrictions, mainstream media in Malaysia manages events within the country through the controlled content of the media.

29

Through laws too, the media has to be supportive of the state (Shome 2002) and only report its positive news.

Reports also contain ‘soft sell’ (hegemonic) approaches by the BN; for example, giving the Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi the nickname “Pak Lah” (Uncle Lah), during the 2004 General Elections (Mustafa 2005a). This approach was used to camouflage more important political issues taking place in Malaysia during the election, and was further emphasised through the practice of disseminating news stories spun to promote BN’s views on selected political issues. This has given an unfortunate image to mainstream newspapers, bringing media credibility into question (Wang 1998), and described as a “credibility deficit to mainstream media” (Mustafa 2005b: 45).

Besides rules and regulations that particularly control the media and the press, the Federal Constitution of Malaysia itself does not suggest absolute freedom of the press (Mohd Azizuddin 2009). Although it is stated that the freedom of the press is assured (part II of the Federal Constitution, Article 10) – freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association – Section II of the same Article imposes discretional limits to this:

(a) On the rights conferred by paragraph (a) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or of any Legislative Assembly or to provide against of court, defamation, or incitement to any defence (Federal Constitution 1999: 11).

Post ‘May 13^th’ 1969 Tragedy, a number of amendments were made to the Constitution in 1971, and several other laws implemented have either directly or indirectly affected the press since. The amended acts include the Sedition Act 1948, The Control of Imported Publicat ion Act 1959,³¹ Bernama Act 1967³² and Finas Act 1981³³ (Mohd Azizuddin 2009). The Sedition Act is described as the most controversial media (Shome 2002), because anything published that can incite racial hatred or ‘threaten national security’ (as defined by the state) can result in conviction.

While various restrictions imposed on newspapers are argued to have started during the colonial era and were further enforced throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the most unforgettable moment that halted the operation of the press was the Operasi Lalang

30

(Weeding Operation), on 27 October 1987, realised through provisions in the ISA. During the operation, several mainstream and alternative newspapers such as The Star, Chinese Sin Chew Jit Poh and Watan³⁴ were revoked from publications (Brown 2005). The operation is seen as a way of avoiding similar racial riots from happening again (Milne and Mauzy 1999).

Moreover, it also aims to prevent the press from being too outspoken.³⁵ The operation arrested over 80 journalists and media activists (Pang 2006).