[16 retratos]

Okay. Have been spending the whole day reading about censorship and surveilance and about regulation of the internet. Still trying to cull something from more than 8000 words to 3000 words. Sigh..

Let me attempt to summarise what I’ve learnt here, and figure out my key argument for the M’sian case (which is the weak point of the paper right now).

ONI’s thesis on censorship, 3 levels:
1) “Brute” and overt. Static, easily noticed and increasingly easy to be circumvented. I.e. filtering (and data retention) at choke points (ISPs) on keywords and blacklists. E.g. “Great firewall of China”
2) Random and covert – happens at critical moments in the country’s political context (e.g. elections). Just in time. a) Technical – DDos attacks, hiring of patriotic hackers, harder to trace, harder to circumvent. Looks like normal network error. Dynamic b) Laws & norms – Use of norms and punitive measures to create a culture of self-censorship. Laws are used to enforce norms. Not necessarily ICT related laws (e.g. defamation, libel etc – sounds familiar?)
3) Subtle and discursive – using tactics of confusion, misinformation and information overload (not “credible” but adds to the discourse) to disable mobilising power of ICTs. I.e. using its nature to shape the discourse, the information. To see “cyberspace” as a military resource, and to invest in its development the same way as e.g. weapons. Back full circle it seems hey? With a bit of KGB thrown in. Also international coorperation and surveillance techniques (always aided by technologies – Lessig, Code 2.0) critical in its successful deployment (also applies in 2)

Heike’s thesis:
1) The nation-state is an imaginary concept of cohesive and mutually referencing identity. The role of the nation-state is to police this boundary, to maintain its rigidity (note to self: imperviousity: virus, migration, dirt and civilisation, imageries and symbols). Gendered order (heterosexual, hegemonic masculinity, race, body) is critical in the construction of these binaries
2) Web 2.0 – interactive, everyone is producer of discourse, self-authorship, everyone is potential receiver. Potential to disrupt gender order through transgressive sexualities – pornography, consumption, erotica (nts: Foucault – madness and civilisation, punishment – spectacle. Butler – performativity). Policing is critical. (WHY)
3) Censorship when understood through a woman’s reality, is much more about social censorship (violence, norms, economic inequalities – first set of barriers) than state censorship (second set of barrier). I.e. by principle, focussing on just the state is at minimum, epistemelogically unsound. Second, it explains a lot about ONI level 2 & 3 censorship phases even works. (STILL WHY)

Lessig Code 2.0:
1) Programming (code) is an important determinant of C & S (or the kind of “free and open” or “closely regulated” internet we have) – TCP/IP’s simplicity and openness (invisible man – anonymity) was designed, and commercial interests have layered all kinds of technology on this both app-based and infrastructure-based to show that it is really right now, a very regulate-able space.

2) Anonymity shattered:

a) Who – IP > ISP. Identity layer on TCP/IP designed by M$ (like the black box, “wallet” format idea being developed by EU to “protect privacy” – is M$ a partner in this?)
b) What – packet inspection. Now also packet inspection. Cookies.
c) Where – IP geo-tracing

Malaysia research (WHO and WHERE and WHAT and HOW)

Here’s where it gets tricky. Only now I’ve figured out what the M’sian research needs to answer.

1) CONTEXTUALISING (or proving?) WHY: The primary role of race relations in shaping all layers of the idea of nation. And race relations is often defined through marriage (where forcible change of identity is not just enacted by norms, but also by law). Sexuality at the core of this. Who, how many, when do you get put in jail for it etc. Policing of sexuality gets hysterical responses when transgressions threaten (lelaki lembut, Fatine, polygamy). Transgressive sexuality also used as a political weapon to discredit and dismantle – Anwar, Soil Leck, Eli etc. (is there an increase since Anwar?). Point: making the link/proof between sexuality, gendered hierarchies, ideas of citizenship (hierarchised) and the nation.

2) ROLE OF C & S IN THIS (HOW?): – Censorship is the platform for this to happen? Regulation of speech, information, bodies? Has it changed since mass adoption of the internet? What does it take? What has been used? Examples. Also reverberates with ONI’s level 2 – explains it?

3) WHERE: Challenges ideas of privacy. What kinds of spaces or debates when this kicks off – March 8 GE, Perak takeover, Katagender Fatwa project – all involved with sexuality, race relations, religion, citizenship – all tied together. Technology’s role in this. What is censored, how is it done, what is the role of technology in this, and the role of law, include surveillance. What about women’s rights sites being taken down? Subtle – not sure how it happens. Not helped by social censorship – technical know-how divested externally.

4) NATION VS INTERNATIONAL: Additional construction of self through orientalisation|mirrorisation of the “global other”. Malaysia truly Asia. Mahathir’s West vs Asian. Mahathirs’ “Vision 2020″ MSC rooted firmly in the developing world as a leader, whilst bending over backwards in subsidiaries and concession to court international expertise (temporary only understand?) and investment. This is a play of hegemonic masculinities. My prick may be small now, but it will be bigger than yours in a few winks. Why? Cause we can control our women better than you can! So we have better morals! Fuck this shit.

5) C & S (WHAT): It polices sexual boundaries. Sexual boundaries polices gendered boundaries. Gendered boundaries polices hegemonic masculinities. Hegemonic masculinities polices the nation state. The nation state policies idea of the “global”.

The “SO WHAT”? I don’t know la. Can’t think anymore. But I think I should have enough to hammer it out… esok.

There are a lot of things that puzzle me that I simply have no time to unravel. The automatic choice of the word “unravel” puzzles me. As though puzzles were a series of interlocking question marks that have been kicked about, gnawed and crocheted by a barrel of unhappy cats.

Black, Perak and Ghandi. To be frank.. I am tired of it all. I’m pretty sure I’m meant to be excited. To feel some kind of fire bubbling over inside me. The compelling force of outrage and quest for justice in the shape of democracy. It is exciting. Everyday, twitter is like a cliff-hanger, waiting to see what happens next. Who’s going to bring who to which imagined higher body over which clause and sentence under which law. It is extremely exciting to wait and see when the queer theory idea of the ludicrous will bring the house down. It’s almost funny. Hysterical. But I guess it can only be funny when you are a spectator and not one of the actors. By force or choice or by simple accident.

I lost my train of thought. And started thinking about mirrors. About two sides of a dirty 10 sen coin. Palmed from person to person. It can get so black that only McDonald’s chilli sauce is able to stain it clean.

Ran out of words again for today.

Every Malaysian is racist. Race is not a dirty language. Most Malaysians puzzle over the use of words like “ethnicity” or “origin” instead of the much richer and loaded language of race. Before any other form of self-identity, race comes first. then gender, or class, or sexuality, or brand affiliation, or anything else that needs to be named. Race as a marker is stitched so firmly into our psyche, our souls, our knowledge of the the self and our place in the universe, it’s instinctive.

I learnt that I was one out of three chinese in my class when i was seven. Before that, I learnt that pig is dirty, just like Indians, except in a different way. I knew that there are differences in our way of life and theirs – theirs being a category that can always be interchanged as the familiar other. Racist jokes about politicians, nasi lemak, roti canai and chee cheong fun abound; lazy malays, money-faced chinese, stupid indians. And amidst the punch lines that carve our alienation from each other is the shadow of violence burning through the numbers, “May 13th 1969″. Like the holy trinity, Malaysians are neatly cut up into a magical three that makes up the corners of a pyramid. With every other identity – Serani, Bengali, Orang Asli, Kadazan, Ang Mo, Indon and more – thrown into the darkness of corners, intermittently visible with a rare shift of light.

This morning, I chanced upon an abandoned Berita Harian at the next table during breakfast. Skimming through the headlines of Najib supporting Pak Lah and Hishamuddin abdicating his Pemuda UMNO leadership position, an advertisement caught my eye. Placed neatly across the bottom part of the front page, it enticed readers with a 70% discount on something. It took me awhile to figure out what the advert was about. Splashed in bold letters under the name of the company are the words, “100% dimiliki oleh bumiputera”. Initially, I thought it was a property development project. The meta keywords “milik” and “bumiputera” immediately linked to make a cohesive picture of “satu lagi project bermutu oleh NEP“.  Reading more closely, I realised that it was actually a sale of fabrics and cloth by a shop in Jalan Masjid India.

So why was it necessary to speak so directly to its potential market that their money will solely profit only bumiputeras? Berita Harian is a Malay-language newspaper. Their readership consists mainly of 20s to 40s, middle income Malays: 93% in 2007. We are freaking out silently at the moment. The recent elections results have thrown our pyramid into slight disarray. We’re a little unsure what the masses want – as informed to us through a select and concentrated number of individuals easily identified through icons and colours.

Tony Pua, my crisp and newly elected Member of Parliament, scoffed at MCA when they tried to assure voters post their recent elections “defeat” that they will continue to protect Chinese rights. He said, “They just don’t get it“. DAP is all about “Malaysians first”, the pyramid scheme just doesn’t hold political resonance anymore. But then a few days later he sputtered at Pak Lah’s statement about Chinese interests being in jeopardy if inadequate (race-based, read Chinese = MCA) representation is made in the Parliamentary Cabinet. So who is not getting what?

I think Malaysians are truly quite fed-up of being told that we can only have particular rights if we have particular kinds of race. The magic May 13th number is a little too far in time to properly evoke palpable terror. The terror of not being told the truth, of being somehow cheated of chances, of having narrow corridors to carefully sail speech bubbles – they are a lot more real somehow.

And it’s also thanks to the development discourse that have been regurgitated to visceral levels to justify all kinds of wayang. Somehow, earning a living has become our primary inalienable equal right. Getting information and communicating it, scaffolded by our accidental and ignorant bliss of an unfettered internet access – also fueled by the language of economics – have become our collective seeds of desire. Race has become an irritating fence that we just want to dismantle.

We have all been struggling against our automatic racism. But we can’t seem to let it go. Because it simply matters. It is the history and the land upon which we are now building our dreams of hope, freedom, justice, equality, etc. etc. etc. Before articulating any form of change, before cartographing our future, the raw materials we have for transformation is the bone black of our racist, nationalised beings.

So what should we do? What can someone like Tony Pua do? When he is also left with the Chinese-interest legacy of DAP. Now together with PAS and PKR attempting to shed their skins and slither anew from the ashes as Pakatan Rakyat, attempting to assuage real fears and tensions of racist Malaysians to similarly let go of this lucrative pyramid and form something new. Whichever angle you take, it still looks like a triangle albeit with a different constitution. Perhaps Hindraf will get fed up that cries of “Makkal Sakthi!” being drowned by cries of “Reformasi!” or “Allah huakhbar!” and form a separate party. Then we could have a trapezoid. Or perhaps in time, PSM will finally get registered and we could have a pentagon.

I want a multi-headed hydra or a border-ignorant paramecium. The sad fact is, we are constructed by identity-politics. We are raced, we are gendered, we are genitalised, we are monetised, we are limbed, limed and slimed with categories and cardboard boxes. We’re just at this moment in time, trapped in the room of race, prying the door handle into the room of class or perhaps gender. Obfuscating our racism by substituting Indian/Malay/Chinese-rights with rights of poor people, rights of women, rights of people living in rural areas, in the rain forest, in the office, in cyberspace.

But some rooms are more fluid than others. It is so much harder to get rid of your skin than say, changing your home address, credit limit, religion or genitals. And maybe one day, when there are so many rooms that doors take up a lot more space than walls, they will cease to matter as much. We just need to be brave and lift our one foot firmly cemented in the race room and try something a little different. Exploration has to start somewhere, so it might as well start with a careless jump.

Great overview on the state of media this year by CIJ:

—

Freedom of Expression: 2007 a year of persecutions
By the Centre for Independent Journalism
16 December 2007

Overall, the state of freedom of expression in 2007 marks a further deterioration compared to 2006. While 2006 was highlighted by the suspension of newspapers due to the Muhammad caricature, the closure of public discussion on race and religion initiated by the Article 11 coalition, and the censorship on books and film, 2007 was the year of persecution and clampdown on people who use alternative platforms for expression, such as bloggers and street assemblies, and increasing media interference to tighten the flow of information.

These three trends are distinct in 2007. Editorial interference by the government were prevalent throughout the year, while harassment of bloggers increased both in frequency and severity during the second half of the year. The last two months of 2007 witnessed a surge of crackdown on public assemblies, culminating in the invocation of the Internal Security Act (ISA) against five leaders of the Hindus Rights Action Force (HINDRAF)

Interference in media reporting by official directives, warnings, “advice” and harassment continued to be one the biggest trends in Malaysia. The principal givers of directives were the Ministry of Internal Security, headed by the Prime Minister himself and the Ministry of Information, headed by Minister Zainuddin Maidin. However, the year also saw a number of other state actors exerting control over media content. They ranged from the police and the Law Minister, Nazri Aziz who tried to bar media coverage on crime, to the Chairman of the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission, Halim Shafie who ordered broadcasters against giving airtime for speeches by the opposition political parties. This was however reversed by the
Minister of Energy, Water and Communication, Lim Keng Yaik.

The “no coverage” orders by the Internal Security Ministry and Information Ministry to the media were prompted by various issues of the day, ranging from what was being discussed in the political blogs to the assemblies by BERSIH (a coalition of political parties and non-governmental groups on free and fair elections) and HINDRAF. The bans were sometimes selective. For example, the media was barred from reporting responses and outcry over the Deputy Prime Minister’s proclamation that Malaysia is an Islamic state despite its secular constitution. In a letter, it was stated that only the views of the Prime Minister and his deputy on this issue should prevail in the print media. This was at the expense of other Barisan Nasional component parties, which also felt strongly against the DPM’s statement. In the HINDRAF issue, statements by UMNO leaders continued to receive coverage despite an order by the authorities to play the issue down. This demonstrates that the level of dominance over the media is certainly not uniform across the ruling parties. In the meantime, the Information Ministry has been vocal in attacking bolder or independent media, despite it having no power to censure the media. The Minister has twice attacked theSun, an English daily known for pushing the boundaries. It also attacked international new agency, Al Jazeera for its live report on police violence during the BERSIH rally.

Editorial interference is also part of the underlying factor for the general practices of self-censorship among editors. It should be noted that the list of interference is not exhaustive as there could be many unreported cases especially the more subtle ones. This could be the reason for the termination of columnists Amir Muhammad and Zainah Anwar in the pro-government New Straits Times. The former is an independent filmmaker while the latter is a women rights activist. Self-censorship also leads to unethical reporting when certain stories were slanted heavily towards the government. One example of such bias is the reporting of public rallies by BERSIH in Batu Burok, Terengganu and Kuala Lumpur and the one organised by HINDRAF, also in the city.

HINDRAF and BERSIH were subject to severe criticism for using violent ways, while the reports were silent on the violence by the police and security forces. Casualties from the civilians’ side were severely underreported. In another case, the media remained silent on RSF Press Freedom Index, which showed a huge drop in Malaysia’s ranking. The only reports were of the dismissal of the ranking, accusing it of being a western agenda. Interestingly, state-run Radio 24 (a newly
launched 24-hours news stations) ran an interview with the Centre for Independent Journalism Executive Director and National Union of Journalists President, while all private-owned newspapers steered away from the issue.

The second trend is the intimidation, which shifted from rhetoric in 2006 to actual persecution against bloggers who write about social and political issues. Two such bloggers were slapped with defamation suits (Jeff Ooi and Ahiruddin Atan, aka Rocky Bru) by New Straits Times and its top officials; one (Nathaniel Tan) was detained for four days because of a link posted by an anonymous commentator; another (Raja Petra Kamarudin) and his wife, not a blogger, were grilled by the police after UMNO, the largest ruling party lodged a report under the Sedition Act; and another (Tian Chua) was questioned under the Communications and Multimedia Act for posting a photo-montage. Two other bloggers received threats, one a member of the government backbenchers club, (Ruhanie Ahmad) and a California-based Malaysian (M.Bakri Musa). These bloggers were targeted amidst developments that were threatening the government. Jeff Ooi and Ahiruddin Attan were sued amidst the feud between Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and former PM Mahathir Mohammad. Actions against Raja Petra and Nathaniel came at the time of a rift between the Deputy Minister of Internal Security and the police force, as allegation of serious corruption in the police force was gaining momentum. Tian Chua was questioned during the trial of the murder of Altantuya Sharibuu, a Mongolian. His photo-montage suggested a link between the Deputy Prime Minister, his aide Abdul Razak and Altantuya herself, who was purportedly murdered by Abdul Razak. It is clear from the actions that they were intended
to silence the bloggers from discussing those issues.

Another related case is of a Malaysian student in Taiwan, Wee Meng Chee, who was under fire for his music video on YouTube, of the national anthem with rap lyrics, mainly about his feelings concerning corruption, discrimination and race relations. The government threatened action under the Sedition Act and the National Anthem Act. The police however conceded that it was unable to charge Wee for posting the video abroad. Wee was subsequently compelled to issue an apology. This incident also brought the issue of ethical reporting to attention as the story first appeared, in the language of condemnation, in Harian Metro, a tabloid under the government-link media conglomerate Media Prima.

The momentum of crackdown on public assemblies gathered since the rally organized by BERSIH, the coalition for clean and fair election, at Batu Burok. Live bullets were shot at the crowd resulting in the injury of two. It is unprecedented in terms of police violence in controlling the crowd. At the BERSIH and HINDARF rallies, police instituted elaborate measures to break them by mounting roadblocks, stopping buses, cars and arresting passengers, firing chemical laced water and tear gas at the crowd, and arresting participants. In the BERSIH-organised rally in Kuala Lumpur on 10 November, 34 people were known to be arrested, while 136 people were arrested during the HINDRAF rally on 25 November. HINDRAF leader P Uthayakumar, his brother P. Waythamoorthy and V. Ganabatirau, were arrested under the Sedition Act two days before the rally. Two more assemblies were held after that – the lawyers’ walk on Human Rights Day and a gathering of people to support the submission of a memorandum to Members of Parliament organised by BERSIH. In a new trend, police obtained restraining orders against participants to the HINDRAF rally and the Parliament group. These gatherings resulted in six lawyers arrested in the Human Rights Day celebrations and 26 members of the BERSIH who tried to go to Parliament to submit a memorandum to protest the constitutional amendment on the tenure of the Chairman of Election Commission. Police also started hunting down leaders and re-arresting participants of the assemblies. Tian Chua from Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) and Mohamad Sabu from PAS, both part of BERSIH, were arrested on 9 December. Three days earlier, 31 people from the HINDRAF rally were re-arrested and charged fro attempted murder and attending an illegal assembly. Uthayakumar himself were arrested, released and re-arrested on 11 December under the Sedition Act. He and four others were eventually detained under the Internal Security Act on 13 December.

Another worrying trend that has surfaced is the attacks on journalists and photographers by state actors or those with suspected links with state actors. Four such cases were reported in the media. The more serious is a journalist from the Malaysia Nanban, a Tamil language daily, who was assaulted by unknown assailants. He has come out of a coma and has vowed to continue his writings, some of which are critical of the administration and the leading Indian political party, the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC). His colleague in the northern territory has also lodged a police report after receiving a death threat from an unknown person. He was warned to stop writing about the problem of the Tamil schools or faced the same consequences as his
colleague in coma.

Underlying these problems are the growing concentration of media ownership, where in this year alone, four Chinese-language dailies – Sin Chew Daily, Guang Ming Daily, China Press and Nanyang Siang Pau – were consolidated under one company owned by a timber tycoon, Tiong Hiew King, known for his close relations with the ruling party. Ownership of the private media by big corporate companies, and with close ties to the government, have further impacted on the diversity and plurality of information in an already controlled environment.

The real danger of little freedom of expression is the risk of increasing polarization along ethnicities among Malaysians. The gap is also poised to widen between those who subscribe mostly to mainstream media, which often misinform according to the interest of the powers-that be, and those who access wider source of information from the internet and foreign media. On the clampdown of assemblies, those who read mainstream media are only presented with the picture of harmony under siege and the provocation of one race against the others. It seriously calls into question the government’s wisdom that freedom of expression must play second to racial harmony. The opposite proves to be true. Any widening of misunderstanding among races is traceable to the limitation on freedom of expression, which prevents issues to be solved.

In this regard, the Centre for Independent Journalism continued to call for the abolition of repressive laws, the setting up of a
Parliamentary Select Committee on Media Reforms, and for greater public scrutiny of and engagement with the media.

Prepared by CIJ Advocacy Officer, Yip Wai Fong.

For more information, please call CIJ at 03-40230772 or email waifong
[at} cijmalaysia [dot] org.