TESCO Lotus, one of the biggest retailers in Thailand, has filed two staggering defamation cases against a Thai columnist and a former member of Parliament, sending a strong message to civil society and the press to tread carefully before criticizing the retailing giant in Thailand.

Tesco Lotus is suing columnist/academic Kamol Kamoltrakul and former Thai National Legislative Assembly (NLA) member Jit Siratranont for 100 million baht and one billion baht, respectively, after they criticized and questioned the aggressive expansion strategies of Tesco Lotus in Thailand.

Siratranont, currently the secretary general of the Thai Chamber of Commerce, was quoted by British newspaper “The Observer” as saying in a speech to 150 activists: “The large-scale expansion of the big retailers must be exercised with great care — not too aggressively and too rapidly — to reduce the potential tension, which could lead to serious conflict. There is also the need for the small retail traders to adjust to changes. Tesco Lotus must take all of this into account.”

Kamol was sued for an article published in the Thai-language “KrungThepTurakit” (BangkokBizNews), which expressed generally the same concerns about Tesco Lotus’ aggressiveness, and also what the columnist suggested was the retailing giant’s weak social responsibility in Thailand.

Both Siratranont and Kamol acknowledged erroneously saying that Tesco Lotus’ Thailand operations accounted for as much as 37 percent of the UK-based Tesco’s global revenue, but stressed that this did not detract from the main message of their concerns — concerns which, in any case, were of legitimate public interest in Thailand.

The Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) strongly condemns the heavy-handed attempts of Tesco Lotus to intimidate its critics, and thereby sending a chilling message to civil society and members of the press. Civil defamation suits of this nature and of such absurd proportions are not really meant to win in court, but rather to intimidate independent media, harass legitimate criticism, and stifle discussions and debate over legitimate public concerns.

The expansion of foreign retailing chains in Thailand has long been a major political issue as it undercuts tens of thousands of small retailers across the country.

As demonstrated by Tesco Lotus — and in recent years by other civil and criminal defamation suits filed against journalists and activists by such Thai business giants as Shin Corporation — threats to press freedom come not only from government and political figures, but also from powerful lobbies
of private entities. SEAPA sees the Tesco Lotus suits as harassment, pure and simple, not only of consumer advocates and Thai civil society actors, but of journalists and commentators in general.

The Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) is a coalition of press freedom advocacy groups from Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand. Established in November 1998, the network aims to unite independent journalists and press-related organizations in the region into a force for the protection
and promotion of press freedom and free expression in Southeast Asia. SEAPA is composed of the Alliance of Independent Journalists (Indonesia), the Jakarta-based Institute for the Study of the Free Flow of Information (ISAI), the Manila-based Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, and the Thai Journalists Association.

THE state of press freedom and free expression declined across Southeast Asia in 2007, according to a yearend report of the Bangkok-based regional media watchdog, Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA).

A coalition of press freedom advocacy groups from Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand, SEAPA aims to unite independent journalists and press-related organizations in the region into a force for the protection and promotion of press freedom and free expression in Southeast Asia. SEAPA is composed of the Alliance of Independent Journalists (Indonesia), the Jakarta-based Institute for the Study of the Free Flow of Information (ISAI), the Manila-based Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, and the Thai Journalists Association.

Below is the SEAPA media statement:

Press freedom and free expression decline throughout Southeast Asia in 2007

FROM the freest to the most restricted among them, the countries of Southeast Asia in 2007 suffered a weakening of press freedom.

The situation in Burma — already the worst in terms of environments for free expression and human rights — further deteriorated right before the whole world’s eyes. A notorious regime predictable for its censorship and tight controls now plunges into even more uncertain harshness.

Read the full country reports on Southeast Asia here.

Meanwhile, Singapore widened the scope of its uncompromising media laws to include the new media even as citizens are beginning to test the erstwhile freedom found on the Internet. A similar development transpired in Malaysia, which is showing signs of backing down from a long-standing promise to never censor the Internet and looking for ways to take on bloggers in court, while political protests in the last quarter of the year have put the government on edge.

At the other end of Southeast Asia’s political spectrum, the freest countries have seen backsliding on the press freedom front. The assassination of yet another Filipino radio broadcaster in the final week of December underscored yet again the continuing impunity by which media and press freedom remained under attack. More than this, the Philippine press came under direct pressure and legal challenges from government. In the last 12 months the Philippine media have been threatened and charged by government for everything from “sedition” to “obstruction of justice,” effectively warned that coverage of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s many critics would be dealt with as criminally contemptuous of government and state.

In Indonesia, progressive developments in the reform of some antiquated laws in the Criminal Code were cause for celebration, but these, too, were overshadowed by the uneven, unpredictable, and surprising application of laws to the detriment of press freedom. The country’s promising Press Law remained under-utilized, leaving journalists vulnerable under the Criminal Code. The Indonesian Supreme Court, meanwhile, ordered Time magazine to pay former president Soeharto the staggering figure of US$106 million for an article that supposedly defamed the fallen dictator in 1999.

Such developments as above give a quick and reliable overview of how the press freedom situation worsened in the region through 2007. Even a newly ratified Constitution and post-coup democratic elections in Thailand could not mask a slew of hastily passed laws under what is supposedly a temporary and self-limited military junta — some of which could severely undermine human rights and democracy and keep a dark cloud over the press and Thailand’s electronic media in particular.

Indeed, the passage of laws on “national security” and Internet-related crimes in Thailand was a familiar theme in 2007 to all countries in Southeast Asia, from Vietnam to the Philippines and Malaysia to Laos. All highlighted the uncertainties they faced and will continue to face in the coming year.

SEVEN Asian countries, including the Philippines, are in the bottom 20 of the fifth annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index released by the international press freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

The Philippines is among the worst-ranked countries for 2006 at 142nd place (in a tie with the Democratic Republic of Congo out of 168 countries surveyed), further slipping three places with the continuing murders of journalists and increased legal harassment in the form of libel suits, including those filed by First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo, husband of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

The country is now in the ignominious company of Bangladesh (137), Singapore (146), Vietnam (155), Laos (156), Pakistan (157) and Burma (164). (Download the Asia Index.)

Since it was introduced in 2002 to provide a worldwide index of countries according to their respect for press freedom, the RSF Index has documented the deterioration of press freedom in the Philippines under Arroyo’s rule, with the country sliding down the rankings from 89th in 2002 to 118th in 2003. Though it improved to 111th in 2004, the country endured a sharp decline to 139th in 2005.

Though it moved up slightly, with fewer journalists killed, Bangladesh recorded more than 80 cases of censorship. Singapore slipped six places due to the new legal action by the government against the foreign media. Vietnam also moved up three places but it continued to stifle freedom of expression online while Laos remained in the same position, with its media obeying the information ministry’s orders.

The past year also saw Asian dictatorships step up their repression of the media with Burma slipping another place, with seven journalists imprisoned, 11 arrested and prior censorship maintained. Despite fairly outspoken media outlets, Pakistan saw kidnappings of journalists and physical attacks by police or intelligence agents.

Two of the three worst free expression violators are also Asian countries — North Korea (168) and Turkmenistan (167). Th RSF index reported that Kim Jong-il, the all-powerful North Korean leader, continues to totally control the media. In Turkmenistan, the torture death of journalist Ogulsapar Muradova, RSF said, shows that the country’s leader, “President-for-Life” Separmurad Nyazov, is willing to use extreme violence against those who dare to criticize him.

China (163) also dropped four places even though the country’s media outlets are more numerous and aggressive now, Repression, however, has increased, carried out jointly by the government departments of propaganda and public security. The Chinese government has stressed that it wants to keep its monopoly on all news, mainly through the state-run Xinhua news agency. In the past year, censorship has been stepped up, penalties increased, and many news websites shut down. Physical attacks have also escalated, with one journalist killed by police.

Northern European countries, meanwhile, have been topping the Index since 2002, with no recorded censorship, threats, intimidation or physical reprisals. As in previous years, Finland, Ireland, Iceland and the Netherlands share first place this year. Perennial joint first-placers Norway, Denmark and Switzerland, have however, slid down the rankings.

Denmark’s dramatic fall (19th) is attributed to the serious threats against the authors of the Mohammed cartoons published in autumn 2005. The Index noted that for the first time in recent years in a country that is very observant of civil liberties, journalists had to have police protection due to threats against them because of their work.

RSF also expressed alarm over the “steady erosion of press freedom” in the United States, France and Japan. Describing the deterioration, the Index said:

The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002. Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of “national security” to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his “war on terrorism.” The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media’s right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism.

Freelance journalist and blogger Josh Wolf was imprisoned when he refused to hand over his video archives. Sudanese cameraman Sami al-Haj, who works for the pan-Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera, has been held without trial since June 2002 at the US military base at Guantanamo, and Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein has been held by US authorities in Iraq since April this year.

France (35th) slipped five places during the past year, to make a loss of 24 places in five years. The increase in searches of media offices and journalists’ homes is very worrying for media organisations and trade unions. Autumn 2005 was an especially bad time for French journalists, several of whom were physically attacked or threatened during a trade union dispute involving privatisation of the Corsican firm SNCM and during violent demonstrations in French city suburbs in November.

Rising nationalism and the system of exclusive press clubs (kishas) threatened democratic gains in Japan, which fell 14 places to 51st. The newspaper Nihon Keizai was firebombed and several journalists physically attacked by far-right activists (uyoku).

(For an explanation on how the Index was compiled, click here.)

ROBY Alampay, executive director of the Bangkok-based regional media watchdog, Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA), wrote an op-ed piece that came out in The Nation yesterday, appealing for help in getting the word out about the need to impress upon the military council — which has taken over the government of Thailand following a bloodless coup last Tuesday — the importance of keeping the Thai media free and independent in these abnormal times.

For sure, Alampay says, many Thais welcome the ouster of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. “Most people in Bangkok do seem genuinely thankful for the military action,” he says. “But the media environment has been especially vulnerable, unstable, and unpredictable the past week.”

For updates on the Thai situation, you can check out the SEAPA blog. Below is SEAPA’s column:

Litmus test for Thailand’s ruling military council: Leave the press alone

By ROBY ALAMPAY
Special to The Nation

BANGKOK — After weeks of rumours, it was not soldiers in the streets that signalled to Thais that a coup was finally under way. The uniform playing of royalist songs over all the country’s TV and radio networks is what had the people sending text messages to each other and logging on to MSN. Even when CNN broke images of tanks rolling into Bangkok, without official confirmation CNN could only speculate as to what was probable. But it was the sudden interruption of those images and the blacking out of all news channels on cable that gave Thailand the real news.

Thais have seen coups before, and they’ve learned to read the signs. The media, in particular, has always been a reliable indicator of change in the air.

The very relationship that Thaksin had with the Thai press — one of the freest and most vibrant in Asia — had been held as the most concrete proof that the man was an enemy of democracy.

Thaksin was portrayed as greedy and power-hungry, as evidenced by designs to install a one-party system alongside private investments that tended to monopolise every industry they touched. But as to the charge that he was a tyrant, what stuck was his heavy-handed dealings with journalists.

Thaksin demonised the media and harassed them in court. He tried to buy them out or squeeze them dry. Even small community radio operations — and even experiments in more progressive online news casting – sounded the alarm over a clampdown targeting the most vocal among them.

Thaksin feigned innocence, called for elections and portrayed himself a product of democracy and not its enemy.

But the press was the crucial indicator of where Thai democracy stood, and where it was headed. Now that Thaksin has been removed, it must still be appreciated as that.

The Council for Democratic Reform under Constitutional Monarchy (CDRM) has assured that it does not intend to hold on to power. The pledge is to step aside for some form of civilian authority within two weeks, call for elections and a new Constitution within a year, all while committing to ultimate democracy and healing the nation.

Most Thais seem genuinely happy to give them the benefit of the doubt. But questions are being asked. How shall power be handed over to civilians? If elections are a year away, what shall the relationship be between the new interim government and the military? What guarantee, indeed, will Thais have that this will all lead to democracy?

People find assurance in the fact that the CDRM now has the blessing of their revered monarch, His Majesty the King.

For perhaps a more objective litmus test, however, observers would be well-advised to also keep watching the country’s media environment.

The CDRM’s pledge to ultimately step aside for democracy’s return must immediately be measured against its willingness to allow Thais the means to take part in that process. That means assuring them of their right to speak — to each other, to society at large, to the international community, to the CDRM itself. To do this meaningfully, the people will need their phones and e-mail, continuing access to diverse and independent news over the Internet and, finally, access to mass media in all forms. The press must be allowed to do its job, and the people must have their information.

In fairness, a few days into the coup, local and foreign journalists so far seem to enjoy unrestricted movement in the country notwithstanding the imposition of martial law. Thais also do seem to have continuing access to the Internet, a vital source of diverse and independent news. Newspapers are coming off the presses at their usual output.

But it is already certain that the CDRM’s tolerance has limits. TV stations have been ordered to stop posting people’s short text messages about the coup. Censorship rules are in place for all media. The official reminder that the interim government has the power to filter news — especially where former PM Thaksin and anti-coup sentiments are concerned — underscore an instability and unpredictability in the media environment. The Internet, meanwhile, will be a crucial proving ground. Thais have access to the Web, but the technology has long been in place to filter websites — ostensibly against pornography — and there is a new warning to webmasters that they will be accountable for any and all content they allow to be posted on Thailand’s popular Web boards.

At the end of the day, therefore, the acknowledged “normalcy” in the working environment for journalists continues largely at the behest and tolerance of the CDRM. Under such an atmosphere, therefore, self-censorship is an inevitable problem, and Thais may ultimately be deprived of diverse, independent information necessary to be meaningful partners in a truly democratic movement.

The CDRM is asking for patience and understanding. It urges media responsibility and prudence. But the CDRM, too, must be burdened with demonstrating its sincerity to the media and the public.

Such a demonstration from the CDRM must go beyond tolerance. It must officially assure that it will keep its hands off the media which, in any case, until three days ago had been acknowledged by the anti-Thaksin movement as a victim and not a threat. Until three days ago, the free press was one of the sectors that needed rescuing, not further control.

To signal a change in that relationship now would be inconsistent with the democratic rationale for the coup. In abnormal times, the media is the canary in the mines. (Or, even to its critics, at least the frog in the pond.) Wherever and whenever the press is weakened, society has learned to understand that there is something worrisome in the air.

September 21, 2006
Military asserts rules for Thai media following coup, silences dissenting voices, arrests demonstrators

Two days into the peaceful military takeover in Thailand, freedom of expression and the media is under threat as the interim Administrative Reform Council moves to isolate deposed caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and clamps down on expressions against the coup.

Foreign and local journalists still enjoy unrestricted movement, and the Internet seems to be left untouched by the military. However, local English broadsheet “The Nation” reports that the Council on 20 September empowered the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology to censor reports that are deemed conflicting to its interests.

The same day, international satellite-transmitted news services CNN and BBC were censored when the news programme featured background information on Thaksin. The screen went black before resuming, presumably after the Thaksin feature was finished.

On 21 September, an interview with the Council on a local television channel was cut short when reporters asked about Thaksin.

“The Nation” reports that the Council has ordered broadcast executives not to air public opinion that would undermine its efforts to “reform” political governance in the country. The army owns the country’s airwaves and all broadcast networks are essentially government operations. Troops have been positioned outside all stations since the coup, ostensibly to “protect and provide security”.

Community radio stations in Chiang Mai that broadcast public opinion will be shut down, added “The Nation.” It quotes Major General Sup-aksorn Sangprakul, commander of the 22nd Sub-Regional Command, saying, “The right to operate community radio stations was recognised by article 40 of the Constitution, but the Constitution was revoked by the third announcement of the council.”

Wire service AFP says media heads have been ordered not to publish viewers’ text messages in a ticker at the bottom of the television screen, as had been featured in some local programmes.

The AFP report quotes an unnamed army official saying that in an afternoon meeting on 21 September, “the army chief General Sonthi Boonyaratglin…will ask all media to stop broadcasting text messages from viewers, and to stop running other expressions of public opinion.”

The Council has meanwhile banned political gatherings of five or more people, imposing a jail term of up to six months or a fine of up to 10,000 baht, or both. “The Nation” reports the arrest of democracy activists on 20 September who were demonstrating against the coup. Those arrested include former members of Parliament Chalard Vorachat and Thawee Kraikupt.

KUALA Lumpur — Malaysians celebrated Merdeka Day yesterday marking 49 years of the country’s independence from British colonial rule amid brewing racial and religious tensions that threaten the already fragile unity of Malaysia’s multi-racial society.

Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi acknowledged the situation in his independence day message as he appealed for unity, respect and cooperation among the country’s ethnic groups of Malays, Chinese and Indians, stressing that the strength of Malaysians lies in maintaining their solidarity.

But beyond race-based political problems, some consider issues pertaining to the rights of contemporary Malaysians, particularly freedoms of speech and expression, to be as serious and paramount, and hence deserve reflecting on in light of Merdeka Day.

Youth leaders like Lee Khai Loon, convenor of Youth for Change (Y4C), for instance, rue the divide-and-rule system the country inherited from the British that remains deeply rooted in Malaysian society. “Independence should not only mean the sovereignty of the country, but how the people live. Are they living in dignity and free from fear? Are they free from control by the authority?” he asks.

Steven Gan, founder and editor-in-chief of Malaysiakini, the country’s acknowledged independent online news site, says that Malaysians, rather than focusing on things that divide them, should instead find common aspirations in democracy, press freedom, and human rights.

In order to uphold the principle of Merdeka, the 28-year-old Lee says the government should ensure that the people are enjoying the fruits of the struggle against the colonial power. By this, he means that the government should not resort to implementing all kinds of repressive laws to prohibit the people to speak out and express themselves.

Yet despite harassments faced by online journalists and bloggers, Gan believes that the government is fighting a losing battle. The country, he says, is on the right path, with the Internet helping to expand democratic space.

“When Malaysiakini came into the picture six years ago, we were very much the only website around. Now we are joined by bloggers and other websites. I think it’s a good thing. There’s safety in numbers. There are more people out there. In that sense, we feel that we are no longer alone,” says Gan.

Below are excerpts of my interview with him:

How would you describe the state of media freedom in the country on the occassion of Merdeka Day?

In Malaysia, we have a situation where we have freedom of speech but no freedom after speech. The Malaysian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech but the government over the many years since Merdeka has made so many changes to the Constitution and passed quite a lot of legislations that restrict press freedom.

So compared to the other countries in Southeast Asia, while we are definitely a little much better than Singapore, we are far behind other countries like Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines.

How do you see the situation of online free speech and expression in light of the recent incident involving yet another comment on Jeff Ooi’s blog?

I think this is basically a reaction from the authorities in the sense that they are finding it very hard to come to terms with the growing space that is being made available because of the emergence of the Internet. For a very long time, the government has more or less complete monopoly on the truth in Malaysia through its control over the mainstream media, especially newspapers, TV and radio stations. And they do that through the licensing regime where if you want to continue publishing, you need to apply for a license. And that has to be renewed every year. And also through the ownership, we have a situation where a lot of the media organizations are directly or indirectly owned by ruling political parties.

That has been the case until more recently where the government is no longer in a position to really control the Internet. They are looking perhaps for excuses to clamp down on the Internet, on some of the more colorful postings that we see in the more influential blogs like Jeff Ooi’s which have managed to get some attention from the authorities. And they are using these against them.

Malaysiakini, of which you were the founder and currently the editor-in-chief was a reaction to this restrictive media regime. But you yourselves have experienced such restrictions.

I think we are being put in the same basket with all the other online media and we face the same kinds of attacks from the government. About two years ago, we were raided by the police and we continue to face constant harassment. We know that we are being closely watched. So everytime that we make, whether it’s a mistake or a lapse on our part, we get hit, sometimes to the point that police reports are made against us and there will be an investigation.

Only recently, last month, we had four police officers visiting Malaysiakini for a small mistake that we made. Well, it’s fair enough. In a media situation when you’re running a daily news website, there will be times that unfortunately we do mistakes because everything moves so fast.

When that happens, as in our case, when (former prime minister) Mahathir (Mohamad) was visiting Kota Baru, we had a reporter there at the airport, and he (Mahathir) was attacked with pepper spray. It looked to our reporter that the attackers were the police because of the fact that a number of people were dressed in black, wearing dark glasses and all that. Turned out they were military officers who are moonlighting as bodyguards.

So we reported wrongly. And after we double-checked and found that we were wrong, we ran an update an hour after that and took out the references to the police. But the police, they themselves filed a report against them.

We see that more or less as harassment because we already said that we were willing to apologize. Also, that piece of news only appeared for no more than one hour. And it wasn’t like it could have somehow defamed the police. But I think the police were waiting for this chance to really get back at us because of the fact that we have been writing a lot of reports about them for many years.

Despite the relatively liberal atmosphere allowed in cyberspace, why do the harassments and investigations persist?

Definitely, the authorities are trying to use whatever existing laws they have to harass bloggers and websites like Malaysiakini. Eventually, they wouldn’t have enough proof to really charge us in court but they can create problems for us in terms of we having to be interrogated, this and that. If there is a raid on our office, they can take our computers. Because like in the raid that happened to us two years ago, eventually no charges were made. They did not have enough proof to take us to court. Our computers were returned to us. But that period has created problems for us.

And it also creates fear among people who are writing on the Internet. There are some people who may not be so confident. They get spooked by others who have faced harassment. There’s this fear that they could be next. It does have some impact…and also on our readers, people are also scared whether they should still read Malaysiakini. Would they be found out by their employers that they are subscribers of Malaysiakini? It creates an atmosphere of fear.

So you think this would continue?

I think it will continue but the government is on the losing side. When Malaysiakini came into the picture six years ago, we were very much the only website around. Now we are joined by bloggers and other websites. I think it’s a good thing. There’s safety in numbers. There are more people out there. In that sense, we feel that we are no longer alone.

With that we feel a lot more confident. The government cannot pick on one person or one website. There are a hell lot more websites and bloggers that they have to worry about. So in that sense, they are fighting a losing battle.

I also heard that there are now journalists becoming bloggers…

Yeah. Recently, you see a number of journalists setting up their own blogs. And that also helps to increase the level of professionalism among bloggers when you have journalists blogging. It helps to provide an edge to the blogs. A lot of times, blogs are only of interest to their own peers and friends. But I think with academics, journalists, professionals doing it, it gives the additional sort of edge to the issues they are discussing. In a sense that’s good.

The Internet has evolved to some extent. When we launched Malaysiakini six years ago, we were perhaps the first wave. I see now, five or six years later, we are seeing a second wave, a second revolution. And it will continue to develop in the coming years. And perhaps, the bloggers will become even more influential.

So you believe the online media and bloggers are expanding democracy in Malaysia?

I think they have the capacity to do that. Whether they are using it, I don’t know. If you look at the number of bloggers we have, I would say that 99 percent are not using the technology to really try to expand democracy and all that. A handful are seeking to do that, people like Jeff Ooi. It’s unfortunate. There should be more bloggers who should be making use of the technology to help to give more voice and offer their own opinions in order to create more discussion among Malaysians.

I do hope that the other bloggers would at least start talking about issues I consider that matter — crime and corruption, press freedom rather than about the type of cereal that they eat for breakfast or something like that.

The Internet has the capacity to promote the free flow and exchange of information and through that enhance democracy. But it really depends on the bloggers.

How long will it take for that to happen?

If you look at Malaysia, it’s already 49 years of independence from the British colonial masters. I think Malaysia is a very unique society in the sense that it’s highly multi-racial. Even the majority ethnic group is not an overwhelming majority. You are looking at 55-60 percent. In that sense you have a large minority. On top of that we are also divided in terms of religion and language.

And Malaysia is also one of the very few countries where you have racially-based political parties. That is not really helping in promoting unity because all these political parties pandered to their own constituencies.

Those are major problems, it’s a very complex society. I don’t think things would change very fast. But I am very confident that we are gearing at least towards the right direction, in the sense that websites and bloggers are helping to create a more interracial and ethnic dialogue among the different races. Through that you can see that they have a lot more things in common — in democracy, press freedom and human rights — than those that divide them.

KUALA LUMPUR — The latest buzz in the Malaysian blogosphere is about the apology of a commenter for a remark he (or she) posted on a blog seemingly suggesting that a journalist be shot for an article that disparaged the country’s former prime minister, Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad.

The incident highlights yet again the delicate balancing act that Malaysian bloggers have to do with respect to their exercise of free speech and free expression online, and takes significance especially coming as it does on the eve of festivities to commemorate 49 years of Merdeka, Malaysian independence from British colonial rule.

The individual, who used the alias IImran, issued an apology after posting “Somebody, please shoot this Gunasegaram for good” on Malaysia’s most prolific blogger Jeff Ooi’s site, Screenshots. The reference was to P. Gunasegaram, the executive editor of theSun and NexNews Group who wrote “The Myth of Mahathir’s Invincibility” which was published in theSun last week. The said article was republished on Ooi’s blog and sparked responses from bloggers, including IImran, who apparently did not approve of Gunasegaram’s attacks against Mahathir.

Yesterday, Gunasegaram lodged a complaint with the Communications and Multimedia Content Forum of Malaysia (CMCF) against Ooi’s blog for carrying the said comment. The CMCF was set up under the Communications and Multimedia Act of 1988 and is tasked with monitoring online content and handling complaints.

Gunasegaram’s news organization has held Ooi responsible for allowing the comment on his site, saying that “a threat to hurt someone is criminal intimidation, not freedom of expression.”

“While we have no problem having anyone debate, discuss or even challenge what Gunasegaram wrote and indeed many people have­, threat of bodily harm is another thing altogether and should be taken seriously,” said Ho Kay Tat, Nexnews Group editor-in-chief. “It was irresponsible of Ooi to allow the posting on his website. We do not understand what motivated him to allow it,” he added.

The mediation by CMCF’s complaints bureau has resulted in the parties — Gunasegaram and Ooi — agreeing on the following conditions:

• removal of all offensive postings by blog commenters
• for Ooi to continue removing such offensive phrases or words as soon as practicable
• for Ooi to publish in full IImran’s apology to Gunasegaram for his remark

Ooi has also acceeded to display prominently a further warning (see image) to blog commenters that they are responsible for their own postings and could be liable for any legal action or prosecution.

In his apology, IImran however said that his comment should not be used against Ooi. Said IImran: “In my opinion, Jeff have (sic) given the readers including me, and (sic) avenue to discuss matters of interests. And as can be seen through comments by others on the blog, not everyone condone my writing and this can be simplified to show that Jeff and the readers are in fact an example of a mature online community bent on self-moderation.”

Unlike its stingent media laws, Malaysian cyberlaw upholds the policy of self-regulation with respect to the Internet so as not to stifle the positive growth of the industry.

In the aftermath of this recent fallout, Ooi has taken the opportunity to challenge his fellow Malaysian netizens to start a “civil, focused, intellectual debate” on whether the present cyberlaw in Malaysia is inadequate in policing the Internet and the behavior of Internet users.

“Tell us if the notion and principles of self-regulation that Malaysian cyberlaw had intended cannot work in Malaysia,” said Ooi, consciously reminding commenters not to resort to offensive language on his blog.

This is, however, not the first time that Malaysian authorities have questioned Ooi for his blog’s content. Early this year, he came under police scrutiny for “inciting racial disharmony” as alleged in a New Straits Times report over a Mohammed cartoon strip it published.

Apparently, the cause of the “racial disharmony” was his post criticizing the NST for publishing the “offensive” cartoon but which also carried a small version of the caricature that he immediately took down. No case has been filed against him though.

Last year, Ooi was brought to the Criminal Investigation Division for questioning in connection with a September 2004 post titled “Islam Hadhari and Money Politics” where he asserted that Islam Hadhari — or “civilizational Islam,” an interpretation of Islam promoted by Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi that focused on Islam’s compatibility with economic and technical development — is inconsistent with political bribery. Ooi described the two forces as “water and oil which do not mix.”

The post received a remark from a commenter who identified himself only as “Anwar” saying that “Islam hadari and money politics is just like shit and urine that’s how to make comparison.” Ooi immediately deleted the words “shit and urine” and even blocked the IP address of “Anwar.” But the mainstream media still faulted him for failing to control his forum and allowing “opinion that is regarded as ridiculing Islam to be published.”

The outcome of a police investigation in the said case remains pending.

REGIONAL press freedom watchdog, Southeast Asian Press Alliance, has recently carved its own space in the blogosphere, hosted on WordPress.

Writes Roby Alampay, SEAPA executive director, in announcing the good news:

Our aim here is not only transfer our Alerts dispatches to a new format, but equally important, to actively engage people in discussions about free expression in our region. Beyond Alerts, we will try our best to actively link to posts pertaining to free expression issues affecting us all. A point in the right direction will always be appreciated.

SEAPA remains an advocacy group for Southeast Asia in particular, but a big reason we’re also making this move is so that we can also reactivate our official conference blog last April — and continue our conversation about free expression in Asian cyberspace. With PCIJ’s help, we intend to bring back that link as a live and active section where our discussions on free expression on the Internet can continue. (We have a lot of questions, for starters, about this
whole “Internet neutrality” thing.)

Go check SEAPA’s blog.

CHARGES against James Gomez have been dropped, his passport returned, but not without a stern warning from the police, who had him arrested at the airport last May 7 and detained for questioning for three consecutive days (May 7, 9 and 10) for 16 hours.

Check out his blog for more updates.

JAMES Gomez, who was one of our panelists at the recently held “Free Expression in Asian Cyberspace” conference in Manila, has been asked to surrender his passport “voluntarily” and to help the Singaporean police with investigations over a complaint lodged against him by the Elections Department of Singapore.

Based on accounts posted on his blog, James was attempting to leave the country when he was stopped at the Changi Airport in Singapore and was subsequently escorted to the police station. He underwent three separate questioning sessions, lasting for 16 hours, in connection with the following charges: criminal intimidation, giving false information, and using threatening words and behavior. The police has not told him how long the investigations will last and when his passport will be returned.

James participated in the recent general elections under the Workers’ Party ticket. The party was able to garner 44 percent of the votes cast, a significant increase to make it the largest opposition party — though still with only one or two parliament seats out of 84. The ruling party retained a large majority with 67 percent of votes cast.

An online petition has been launched to express support for James. To sign the petition, click here.

You can also access information about his participation in the recent Singapore general elections and the petition on his blog. Jeff Ooi also has accounts of the airport incident and James’s arrest.