In Malaysia, a 1984 publishing law being used to ban Swatch watches and books is stoking public fears, anger
Critics say recent seizures made under the Printing Presses Publication Act (PPPA) are government responses to a more conservative wave sweeping over Malaysia.
Mr Amir Hamzah Akal Ali - or Benz Ali as he is more popularly known - during an interview session with CNA at his Toko Buku Rakyat shop in Kuala Lumpur. (Photo: CNA/Fadza Ishak)
KUALA LUMPUR: Bookshop owner Amir Hamzah Akal Ali is more wary about who walks into his shop these days, following a recent government raid that ended with the seizure of two books.
The door to his Toko Buku Rakyat shop is now always locked and a poster that once covered the window of the door is now removed so that he can see who is outside.
Known more popularly by his pen name Benz Ali, the 35-year-old from Kedah has been selling Malay language books on philosophy, thinking, politics, religion, and history among others for about 10 years online.
His physical nondescript bookshop that can fit about 10 people is located in a small building about two minutes away from Kuala Lumpur’s glittering twin towers and has only been around for less than a year.
But on Aug 18, four officers from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA) seized two books from his shop - Marx Sang Pendidik Revolusioner (Marx, the Revolutionary Educator) and Koleksi Puisi Masturbasi (the Masturbation Poetry Collection) - under the Printing Presses Publication Act (PPPA).
“What is the point of their raids? Have they read the books or is it because of the titles? Sometimes the titles are just like clickbait,” he tells CNA during an interview.
The raid on the bookshop comes three months after the ministry raided 16 Swatch stores across the country in mid-May, seizing 172 watches for supposedly promoting the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community, also under the same law.
Such enforcement efforts have fuelled further criticism among human rights organisations and journalists against the PPPA as being a draconian law that restricts freedom of expression.
Many are also saying that the Pakatan Harapan (PH)-led government under Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim is not keeping its end of the bargain when it promised reforms on such laws.
There are those who claim that such incidents are government responses to a more conservative wave that is sweeping over Malaysia, as evidenced by results of recent polls in the country.
HOME MINISTER’S POWERS TOO WIDE
The main contention to the PPPA is the absolute power given to the Home Affairs Minister to censor publications, and that it has been used to suppress dissent and criticism of the government.
Ms Wathshlah Naidu, the executive director of the Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) says the PPPA has a few problematic provisions, especially one that grants the Home Minister absolute powers to ban any publications which are deemed to be prejudicial to public order, morality, security, or which is likely to alarm public opinion.
“These provisions are very vague and have been misused in the previous years. What are the reasons to justify these raids and whose reasons are you applying?. The government seems to be reacting to the conservative voices in the country,” she tells CNA.
In the case of the Swatch watches, for example, the watches were seized first before a gazette of the ban was made almost three months later. Similarly, the two books seized by the ministry from Mr Amir’s bookshop on Aug 18 have not been banned.
The Malaysian Bar - the body that regulates the profession of lawyers in the country - tells CNA that the legality of the raids and seizures remains questionable and is subject to challenge in court.
“Under the PPPA, the Minister of MOHA is first expected to make an order published in the gazette regarding the prohibition of any undesirable publications,” a spokesman for the Malaysian Bar says in response to queries from CNA.
“Without a gazette in place prohibiting such ‘undesirable publications’, any raid and seizure carried out by MOHA would most likely be unlawful and excessive.”
SWATCH BAN ENCOURAGES SOME TO BUY ITEMS ELSEWHERE
A total of 164 watches, worth RM64,795 (US$13,900) were confiscated for supposedly violating the PPPA, with Swatch then contesting the ban in court.
In a statement back in May, the Justice for Sisters (JFS) group said the incident raised concerns over the increasing hostility against LGBTIQ people in Malaysia. LGBTIQ refers to those who identify as LGBT as well as intersex and questioning.
“This dangerous trend goes hand in hand with the increasing conservatism and extremism in Malaysia. One cannot be addressed without the other,” it had said.
It claimed that there was an increasing trend in the use of the PPPA in restricting LGBT-related expressions, with the ministry banning at least six LGBT-themed books under the law on broad grounds of so-called threat to public morality, order, and security.
But a Malaysian businessman who wants to be known only as Jason says he and his partner purchased rainbow-themed watches that are part of Swatch’s “pride collection” when they visited Taiwan a few weeks back, although they don’t consider the brand a favourite of theirs.
They spent about RM700 to buy two watches that are meant to show support for the LGBT community.
“We might not have bought it if it wasn’t banned in Malaysia, but the ban gave us the urge to purchase it. It is our gesture to support the rainbow and the community,” Jason, 43, who is from Kuala Lumpur, tells CNA.
The Home Ministry said in a statement on Aug 10 that anyone owning any such products produced by Swatch could face up to three years in jail or a maximum fine of RM20,000, or both, if convicted.
The ban covers all Swatch products that contain LGBTQ features including boxes, wrapping and accessories.
Jason says he and his partner have been wearing the watches out in the open and considers the seizure and ban of the watches ridiculous.
“They can seize anything, but our identities will be the same. If you are straight, you will be the same and if you are gay, you will remain gay,” he says, adding that he has nothing to fear by wearing the watch.
ACT STILL NEEDED: HOME MINISTRY
Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution told the Malaysian Senate in April that the latest study on the Act found that it was still relevant in preserving public security and peace “at this time”.
There were no details of the study quoted by Mr Saifuddin.
“There is no need for the government to be hasty in abolishing the law. However, the ministry will continue to conduct studies in the future on reviewing the Act in line with current necessities,” he was quoted by news portal Free Malaysia Today (FMT).
During a press conference on Aug 22, Mr Saifuddin said there were no issues with the raids on the Swatch stores, saying that they had the power to do so under the PPPA.
“There were complaints by the public and the ministry under its enforcement division acted on those complaints,” he said.
Mr Saifuddin also did not want to comment further on the Swatch issue as it was being challenged in court.
On the bookshop raid, Mr Saifuddin claimed that they just took two books after complaints from the public.
“According to this act (PPPA), we are conducting research and checking if the content of the books are against the aspects as stated in the law,” he said, adding that they would return the books if they did not contain any elements that could trigger public unrest.
PUBLISHER QUESTIONS NEED FOR THE ACT
The founder of a publishing outfit involved in a similar book seizure by MOHA under the PPPA tells CNA that the law was not necessary in this day when everything was available online.
“Even if you ban one book, it can be uploaded online and be accessed. Perhaps the old generation don’t know how to use the internet and still want to read books, but the law doesn’t have much meaning,” says Mr Chong Ton Sin, founder of Gerakbudaya, which is described as a publisher and distributor of books that embody social awareness, critical and alternative perspectives.
In 2020, the book Rebirth: Reformasi, Resistance and Hope in New Malaysia that was published by Gerakbudaya was seized and then banned for the depiction of Malaysia’s coat of arms on its cover.
In that case, Mr Chong apologised to anyone who was offended by the cover of the book and said that he would be more sensitive in the future.
Mr Chong tells CNA that while he himself would not sell books that were anti-religion, encouraged terrorism or contained pornography for example, there was only so much the government could block out from the public.
He says that the ban on books only meant trying to restrict the freedom of thought.
“You can get really obscene videos on your handphone but you can’t ban the handphone. The times have changed, and it isn’t like before,” he adds.
For Toko Buku Rakyat shop owner Mr Amir, the seizures of the books have been a blessing in disguise and given him free publicity.
He says that even though the “thought police” can try to seize books physically, they can’t do anything if the books go online.
“The internet is like the sun and the air. How can you block it out? You can’t do anything,” he says.
WHERE ARE PH’S REFORMS, ASK LAWYERS AND CRITICS?
The director of human rights organisation Lawyers for Liberty Zaid Malek says it is appalling that the PH-led government, which promised several reforms during elections, is trigger-happy with the power it wields under the PPPA.
“This is a legislation notorious for its clampdown on freedom of press in the past. PH had previously called for its abolition, a promise evidently forgotten,” he said.
In its manifesto for the 2022 general election, PH had pledged to review and repeal laws that were deemed to restrict free speech, such as the PPPA, the Sedition Act, and the Communications and Multimedia Act.
During the 15th general elections last November and the recent elections in six states, opposition coalition Perikatan Nasional (PN) won the majority of Malay votes, using racial and religious sentiments to attract voters.
Related:
Mr Zaid says that the manner in which the raid and seizure were conducted shows that the government is acting beyond the ambit of an already draconian law.
“Seizing or destroying books is the hallmark of a police state, not the democracy we are supposed to be,” he says, adding that the ignorance and “plain idiocy” behind the seizure of the books is a national embarrassment.
“At all times the government must be guided by principles, and not populist sentiments in the hopes of garnering enough votes to stay in power,” he adds.
The Malaysian Bar tells CNA that it has long advocated the repeal of the PPPA, which they say is notorious for being abused by authorities to intimidate and threaten certain parties who hold differing views.
“It is an obsolete and repressive piece of legislation that is no longer relevant in a democratic society, especially in relation to the fundamental liberties of its citizens,” they say.
Mr Amir points out that the law was enacted back in 1984 during the early years of Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s first stint as prime minister.
“There weren’t computers then. They had to use a typewriter to type out the law. It surely is outdated for this day and age. Why does the current government still want to keep this law when it talks about reforms?” he says.
