On 27 May, the Ministry of Home Affairs of Malaysia confirmed it had banned seven books under Section 7(1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA) for allegedly being a threat to morality and public order. The ban is the latest example of the PPPA’s violation of international human rights law and of Malaysian officials using the act to censor material that the public should be able to freely access.
Nalini Elumalai, ARTICLE 19’s Senior Malaysia Programme Officer, said:
‘The continued use of the PPPA to dictate what Malaysians can or cannot read based on overly broad concepts is deeply troubling and undermines the fundamental need for open discourse essential to any democratic society. Such measures infringe on freedom of expression and highlight an increasing intolerance towards diverse perspectives within society.’
ARTICLE 19 has repeatedly warned that PPPA is incompatible with international human rights law and standards relating to freedom of expression. Section 7(1) gives sweeping discretion to the Minister of Home Affairs to ban publications, opening the door to arbitrary and discriminatory application. Moreover, the possible justifications for a ban are extensive and broadly defined. Again, this power is granted without judicial oversight and risks arbitrary interference with freedom of expression. Section 7(1) fails to comply with requirements under international human rights law that restrictions on freedom of expression must be precise enough to allow individuals to regulate their behaviour and narrowly tailored to address a legitimate objective, based on necessity and proportionality.
Censorship based on grounds of public morality has raised concerns and sparked current debates. For example, the recent ban in Malaysia on LGBTIQ books and the ‘Pride Collection’ of Swatch watches have exacerbated the hostility and discrimination LGBTIQ individuals continue to face. Many already feel unsafe and at risk of retaliation for expressing their identities.
Any restrictions on freedom of expression must satisfy a three-part test. Restrictions must be provided by law, and must only be imposed based on one of the legitimate aims set out in Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – exhaustively listed as respect for the rights or reputations of others, the protection of national security, public order or public health or morals – and must conform to the strict test of necessity and proportionality.
‘It is well known that this law grants arbitrary powers and has often been used to suppress those critical of the government and curtail freedom of expression in general,’ said Nalini Elumalai. ‘The Madani government still has the chance to make right what was promised to the people and restore its human rights agenda. This means repealing this law, as well as other archaic laws such as the Sedition Act, to reverse long-standing restrictions on free speech and create an enabling space for Malaysians to express themselves without fear.’