Malaysian Journalists Influence Media Ethics But Need Support
In the absence of a progressive legal framework to establish a Media Council and a complimentary Code of Ethics, the actions of journalists as influencers and their adherence to ethical standards and values are what drives quality journalism in Malaysia. While their role is admirable, their impact remains low and needs to be backed up by other stakeholders. These were the key perspectives that emerged on 12 October 2021, during the webinar ‘Media Ethics and Journalism in Malaysia’ co-convened by Asia Centre, in collaboration with the School of Media and Communication of Taylor’s University. The event, supported by the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, aimed at giving an overview of the challenges and issues facing journalists in the country. The event started with welcome remarks by Dr. Charmnan Ngammaneeudom, Advisor at the Thai Media Fund, expressing his concerns over opinions preceding facts in mainstream media. This impacts impartiality and leads to partisanism and interferes with the journalists’ mission of bringing out the truth. Philip Gan Chee Keat, Programme Director at the School of Media & Communication, Taylor University, Malaysia, outlined the ever–stronger need for reliable sources of information in the era of post–truth instigated by fake news. He thus noted that reporters need to hold tight to the principles of honesty and integrity in their investigations. Dr. Robin Ramcharan, Executive Director, Asia Centre, encouraged journalists to hold fast to ethics and values, especially now that big social media groups driven by profit are leading the news distribution and facilitating the spread of disinformation through their algorithms. Following the welcome remarks, and the first to speak, Wathshlah Naidu, Executive Director of the Centre for Independent Journalism, set the scene by highlighting the instability of journalists’ employment due to moving ownership of companies and lack of funds. Moreover, undue restrictions of access to media platforms during COVID–19, the crackdown on freedom of reporting and a lack of Right to Information (RTI) legislation, are compromising the independence, freedom and ethics of media companies and reporters alike in Malaysia. Independent Broadcast Journalist, Tehmina Kaoosji, touched on female journalists, developments related to the media council and sustainability of the industry. She said the most heavily affected among journalists were women, especially during the pandemic, as they had to take on childcare duties with the closing down of schools and nurseries. They are also the target of attacks on their legitimacy as journalists. She believes strong female mentors can inspire more young women to become journalists and combat women’s underrepresentation in the media world. Dr. Benjamin YH Loh, Senior Lecturer School of Media and Communication, Taylor’s University Malaysia and Asia Centre Associate, introduced the legal framework journalism in the country. The politicization of legal prosecution has led local media to provide the bare minimum in their news coverage. He then drew from the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics. to express his wish for Malaysian journalists: serve the role of watchdogs, give a voice to the voiceless, be sensitive in deciding what to publish or not, support civil discourse while considering the long–term implications of their publications, and be transparent in explaining their ethical choices and processes to their audience. Zurairi A. R., News Editor from Malay Mail, expressed there were ethical considerations when the media amplified social media posts, which were meant for a small circle, and reported them as news sometimes without the consent of the original contributor. This inevitably leads to privacy breach of individuals. Another issue was the practice of local media quoting non-experts, or non-stakeholders, unnecessarily making them authoritative voices affecting the vulnerable individuals such as members of the LGBTI community. After the presentations, a key focus of the Q&A session was whether the main responsibility for ethics lies with the individual, organisation, society or was it structural. The discussion pointed to an need for individual responsibility as well as an accompanying change needing to happen at the societal level to influence the institutional level. Since journalists remain in a tough position, the voices of NGOs and the public are crucial to push for stronger ethics. Their support and their demands will be the main drivers of change. Therefore, observers and readers also share a responsibility in promoting ethical reporting. In closing the webinar and thanking speakers and participants, Dr. James Gomez introduced the Asia Centre’s office in Iskandar Puteri, Johor Bahru, Malaysia. He explained that Asia Centre Malaysia is positioned as the media hub for the Centre’s creative works and communications-related projects. He also outlined key media outputs coming up next year—such as infographics, short videos and podcasts—associated with the Centre’s evidence-based research on press freedoms, building momentum to the 2022 International Conference on Freedoms of Expressions in Asia (24 to 26 August 2022, Bangkok Thailand). This event marks the beginning of the collaboration between Asia Centre and the School of Media and Communication at Taylor’s University Malaysia. A memorandum of agreement is in the making between the Centre and Taylor’s University with plans to collaborate on a joint report on internet freedoms in Malaysia. The full recording of the event can be viewed here. Asia Centre works on issues related to freedom of expression. If you would like to collaborate with the Centre on evidence-based research, co-coveneing activities or other projects. Send an expression of interest to contact@asiacentre.org
Workshop on Tackling Disinformation
Asia Centre, in collaboration with the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD) and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF), convened a two-day workshop on 25 September and 2 October 2021. These workshops, moderated by Mr. Celito Arlegue, Executive Director of CALD, is a follow-up to Asia Centre and CALD’s baseline study, ‘Defending Freedom of Expression: Fake News Laws in East and Southeast Asia’ published in February 2021. On the first day, the main focus was on legal ways to address disinformation and how to mitigate the threats such legislation poses to freedom of expression. Hence, the participants considered the questions, “What legal measures can be mobilised to counter disinformation? How to address threats such laws pose to freedom of expression?” Chair of CALD Sen. Francis ‘Kiko’ N. Pangilinan opened the first workshop session. In his welcome remarks, he recalled how for a long time disinformation has been rampant and has been threatening democracy. He called on every participant to be a good influencer for their networks: the best countermeasure to disinformation is the truth—as long as it comes out “fast, fair and fun”. Thereafter, Dr. James Gomez, Regional Director of Asia Centre, outlined the evolution of legal measures used against disinformation. He pointed to an emerging approach known as the ‘Gateway’, which allows for a total surveillance and for shutting down the whole domestic internet system. With its very intrusive reach, it has instilled fear of surveillance and self-censorship among internet users, in particular journalists, human rights defenders and activists. To counter it, Dr. Gomez recommended the introduction of Privacy and Data Protection legislation to lessen fear of surveillance, and for the government to share information under a Right to Information Act. Reacting to the presentation, Asst. Prof. Dr. Lasse Schuldt, Legal Expert from Faculty of Law Thammasat University, examined how fake news laws infringe on freedom of expression, and whether a distinction between facts and opinions should be made clearer. He noted that fake news legislation tends to be vaguely-worded, hence it opens up to a wide interpretation by local authorities, allowing the use of such legislation against political opponents and dissenting voices. To counter this risk, Dr. Schuldt suggested procedural safeguards. Members from the CALD network were then invited to give their input, drawing on their country’s experience with fake news. Kiat Sittheeamorn, Member of Parliament of the Democrat Party, Thailand, and Vice President of Liberal International recommended a regional or global approach rather than domestic legislation to tackle fake news and disinformation, as the issue transcends borders. Helmy Hidayat, Foreign Affairs Directorate of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP) gave an extensive presentation of his country’s background and the various ethnic and religious communities. In Indonesia, fake news, he stated, is often disseminated as part of hate speech intended to stir up religious tensions, as well as xenophobia. During the COVID-19 crisis, hoaxes were used to question the competency of the government as well as endangered public health. In closing the first workshop, Cong. Francis Gerald “Blue” Abaya, Secretary General of CALD, acknowledged that laws originally aimed at fighting malicious disinformation are being used to censor critical content and protect government leaders from criticisms. The tightening of the grip on freedom of expression should be addressed by an urgent revision of laws to preserve fundamental freedoms and human rights. On the second day the focus shifted to non-legal ways to address disinformation and the helpfulness of transparent information sharing and fact-checking from the media literacy. Hence, on the second day, participants discussed: “How can non-legal measures be used to address disinformation?” Starting the workshop, Dr. James Gomez, Regional Director, Asia Centre, highlighted key non-legal measures used to combat disinformation. These included: government transparency, fact-checking, technology companies filtering, quality journalism and media and information literacy. He said, non-legal measures should be prioritized over legal measures as the latter often result in violations of freedom of expression. Non-legal approach also allows for more involvement of stakeholders, creating a holistic learning curve for both audiences and the organisations that implement the aforementioned measures. Nukila Evanty, Executive Director of the Women Working Group, raised the important question of mobilizing non-legal measures against disinformation in Indonesia. She said the country is particularly vulnerable to disinformation as 89% of its citizens use the internet. Over 1,600 hoaxes related to COVID-19 have been listed from January 2020 to June 2021, with prominent politicians, ministers, and influential figures sometimes unknowingly spreading disinformation themselves. Ms. Evanty highlighted how religious figures and influencers are being levered into fact-checking information by the government. Two representatives from CALD then brought input from their country’s experience in relation to non-legal measures. Ms. Peifen Hsieh of the Democratic Progressive Party of Taiwan, presented the Taiwan Model for combatting disinformation. Efficient government reactions that relay transparent, readable, fast responses, with regular disinformation correction broadcasts were key. Mr. Hng Chee Way of Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia, presented the Malaysian government initiatives, centered around the creation of anti-fake news websites. He said, people respond well to trusted sources for combating misinformation. In the Malaysian case, the COVID-19 pandemic experience has shown, trusted sources of information can alleviate the impact of disinformation. Moritz Kleine-Brockhoff, Head of Regional Office, Southeast and East Asia, Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom gave the closing remarks, outlining the main lessons from the workshops: No fake news is good: Misinformation undermines trust systematically We are not powerless: There are several measures we can take Fake news is ideologically and politically driven Agreeing with the closing remarks, Dr. Robin Ramcharan, Executive Director, Asia Centre concluded that misinformation is a pressing issue that needs to be dealt with. The significance of countermeasures can not be understated. On that note, he welcomed the continued collaboration with CALD and FNF on workshop and training initiatives. You can download, ‘Defending Freedom of Expression: Fake News Laws in East and Southeast Asia’ here Asia Centre works on issues related to freedom of expression. If you would like to collaborate
6th International Conference (2021): COVID-19 in Asia: Communication, Nationalism and Technology
From 8 to 10 September 2021, Asia Centre convened its 6th International Conference on COVID-19 in Asia: Communication, Nationalism and Technology. Due to the ongoing travel and health advisories at the time, the conference was convened as an online event with participants using teleconferencing software to join from different locations and across international time zones. Into its 6th year, Asia Centre’s annual conference continued to grow, with 17 partners who convened 15 panels. The Centre facilitated the presentations of 51 speakers of which 57% were male and 43% were female. The Conference examined a variety of impacts the pandemic has had on different societies in Asia. One key issue that came up was that of COVID-19 ‘infodemic’ and the challenges it posed. Through the different panel sessions, there was an attempt to identify possible solutions to it such as media and digital literacy, as well as government transparency and increased collaboration with civil society groups. The first day opened with welcome remarks from conference partners: Prof. Dr. Yubol Benjarongkij, Dean of the Graduate School of Communication Arts and Management Innovation at NIDA, Ms. Varinrumpai Puntanaree, Deputy CEO of the Thai Media Fund, Mr. Frederic Spohr, Head of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom in Thailand and Dr. Robin Ramcharan, Executive Director of Asia Centre who also acknowledged the partnership of the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy. The recording of the welcome remarks will be available on Youtube soon. Asia Centre’s panel partners who convened the different sessions for the 2021 event were as follows: NIDA’s Graduate School of Communication and Innovation Management, Faculty of Management Science Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University, College of Social Communication Innovation Srinakharinwirot University, Faculty of Communication Arts Chulalongkorn University, CMU, Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF), Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies, Osaka Jogakuin University, Kyushu University, Graduate School of Letters Osaka University, Harm Reduction International, Expertise Agency of The Indonesian House of Representatives (Badan Keahlian DPR RI), Internews, Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD) and International Republican Institute (IRI). On the first day, 5 Thai universities across 4 panels discussed the impact of COVID-19 on the business sector and the main communication challenges that arose in Thailand. The discussion underlined the inequality in internet infrastructure and access to information as well as the importance of developing digital literacy of the population, as every daily activity moved online. Toward the end of the day, the political dimension was discussed. Political analysts and human rights specialists from Thai government institutions and university addressed the state of democracy and human rights in Thailand under the pandemic. The most important takeaway is their call for more transparency in managing the health crisis. On the second day of the conference, 4 panels co-convened by 3 Japanese universities put together regional and international speakers to cover the COVID-19’s impact on regional levels in education, xenophobia and politics more generally. In addition, 2 INGOs discussed the pandemic’s impact on human rights and democracy, outlining the impact of the pandemic on civil society participation as demonstrations were forbidden in many countries. They also outlined the disproportionate impact the securitisation of the COVID-19 response had on vulnerable communities. On the third day, 4 panels consisting of parliamentary researchers, political party representatives and media professionals discussed and evaluated legal, economic and political measures taken to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, with a special attention given to the role of vaccines and their manipulation to fit national interests over regional or global interests. The last panel of the conference examined the manipulation of the pandemic by governments to reduce political opposition during elections. Over the 3 days, the conference participants addressed the political, cultural, social, educational and technological aspects of the pandemic. The key focus of the conference was infodemic and misinformation during the pandemic, the decline of trust in public institutions, the lack of transparency in governments’ crisis management, and the politicisation of public health measures by authoritarian governments in the region to increase their power to the detriment of the most vulnerable groups. As the conference progressed, the links between nationalism, communication and technology became self-evident. In wrapping the conference, Dr. Robin Ramacharan, Executive Director of Asia Centre announced the next year’s 7th International Conference, ‘Freedom of Expression in Asia: Academia, Media and Internet”, in Bangkok, on 24, 25 and 26 August 2022. Asia Centre is presently calling for expressions of interest to partner for the 2022 conference. To register your interest, please send an email to research@asiacentre.org Papers submitted will be published in the Conference Proceedings later in November 2021. Recordings of all three days of the conference are already available on Asia Centre’s YouTube channel and Asia Centre’s Facebook page.
Data Protection Can Ease Fear in Cambodia
Data protection is needed in Cambodia to address self-censorship arising from the monitoring and persecution of online users. This was the key theme that emerged during the online launch of Asia Centre’s baseline study: “Internet Freedoms in Cambodia: A Gateway to Control” on 1 September 2021. In his opening remarks, the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia, Vitit Muntarbhorn stated that the government needs to comply with international human rights standards. Given decreasing internet freedoms in Cambodia, he recommended that data protection and access to information be instituted to enable people to express their opinion without fear. Dr. James Gomez, Asia Centre’s Regional Director presented the report. He said provisions in the constitution, the penal code, the law on telecommunications, the inter-ministerial Prakas No.170, the national internet gateway and the draft of cyber crime law allow the government to monitor and persecute online users resulting in fear. Hence, people have become reluctant to express their political opinion online. This has led to acute self-censorship that has caused people to refrain from posting and sharing information, only consume online content privately, cease accessing political content and avoid online political participation. In responding to the report, Sokunthea Chhan, Media Development Director of the Cambodian Center for Independent Media (CCIM), expressed her concern over the safety of female journalists. In particular, independent female journalists who work on human rights, politics and environment issues. She pointed out that 3 female journalists have recently been jailed by the government for simply reporting the news. Him Khortieth, Research & Advocacy Manager of the Cambodian Journalists Alliance Association (CamboJA), shared that 90.65% of the journalists in Cambodia are concerned for their safety when reporting on scandals and over 80 % are similarly concerned when reporting on human rights issues. In 2021, 40 persons were arrested for questioning the government’s handling of the pandemic and 7 of the media outlets had their licenses revoked for “stealing information” and incitement over fake news. Soung Khoy, Child and Youth Empowerment Coordinator at the Child Rights Coalition Cambodia, explained the fear among the younger generation in accessing information and producing content. He said that people in Cambodia, especially children and youth, are afraid of legal charges for posting or commenting online. Some are even weary to express their own political opinion over the internet or even talk about human rights and social justice using their private platforms. Wrapping up the discussion, Dr. Robin Ramcharan, executive director at Asia Centre, emphasized the importance of data protection legislation as it can ensure people’s safety while accessing information and expressing their views online. In this context, a data protection and privacy act can shield people in Cambodia from undue surveillance and sharing of their personal information. This can prevent the use of personal data for political persecution and reduce fear among online users. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattiThe report is already available on Asia Centre’s website here. The report launch session can be viewed here. Asia Centre works on issues related to freedom of expression. If you would like to collaborate with the Centre on evidence-based research, co-coveneing activities and briefings or other projects. Send an expression of interest to contact@asiacentre.orgs, pulvinar dapibus leo.
Covid-19 Policies Impact Information Rights
The COVID-19 related infodemic in Southeast Asia is affecting access to accurate information. This is in part caused by the implementation of the government’s public health policies for the pandemic. Censorship of information on the COVID-19 situation, propaganda from state-sponsored media to spin a positive image of the government and other policies are the key causes of disinformation. This was the major view that emerged from speakers of session two’s panel discussion, “Respect for Human Rights: Measurement and Implementation of Public Health Policy in Southeast Asia”. Six presenters from Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Southern Thailand provided their insights on the situation. Dr. Arunee Santhitiwanich, Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani University, observed that the Thai government responded to the infodemic through the use of emergency legislation. Laws were used as tools to restrict access to content over the internet and the media. Human rights activists criticising the work of the ministry of interior’s COVID-19 center were prosecuted. This has increased distrust of government information as inequality in vaccine distribution, healthcare treatment and the overall ineffective management of the pandemic continues. Abdulsuko Dina, Columnist at Matichon weekly and Vice-President of Civil Society Council of the Southernmost Thailand said a reform of the justice system is needed. There is a need to reconcile trust and reliability between the federal and the local government, which is the main cause of the infodemic in Southern Thailand. One suggestion he made was to decentralise the vaccine import process. Dr. James Gomez, Regional Director at Asia Centre, highlighted the situation in Singapore where the healthcare policy implementation needs to account for the high number of foreigners. This has led to concerns among Singaporeans that they are being treated as second class citizens in their own country. Given the high rate of vaccinations, the debate centres upon the rights of the vaccinated and unvaccinated as the city-state opens up. Dr. Suyani Indriastuti from the Faculty of Social and Political Science, University of Jember, provided an insight into Indonesia. She noted the problem of data validation from separate sources of information indicate a difference in terms of statistics and reality, also pointing out the difference between culture and religion as they each influence compliance to health concerns differently. Dr. Benjamin YH Loh, Senior Lecturer at the School of Media and Communication, Taylor’s University Malaysia, explained the political instability in the country and its impact on the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. The lack of information on vaccinations has been the main cause of the influx, affecting vulnerable groups. Xenophobia has been directed at migrant workers and refugees, arising from misinformation that they are the primary virus carriers in the country. John Phillip Binondo, Assistant Professorial Lecturer, International Studies Department, De La Salle University-Manila, said the situation in the Philippines was confusing as many different regulation policies like the Enhanced Community Quarantine (EQC) and Modified Enhanced Community Quarantine (MECQ) had conflicting COVID-19 regulations. This served to cause confusion, rather than be a benefit to the Philippine population. Despite having experienced the longest community quarantine, the Philippines has continually suffered the consequences of such uncertain policy and unreliable communication. Effects of this have resulted in severe economic recession, social disruption and a reduction in the credibility of the Philippine governments. Pulling the discussion together, Dr. Robin Ramcharan, Executive Director at Asia Centre, summarised the lessons for Southeast Asia. He emphasised the need for increased information sharing between federal, local and civil society in order to deal with the infodemic. He also called for more cooperation between government and civil society to ensure the accessibility of accurate information in combating the COVID-19 infodemic. Governments are obligated to provide people with accurate and essential information, allowing criticism is absolutely necessary in fostering a transparent environment There were several questions raised after the discussion. The full details of the panel discussion session can be viewed here. The panel discussion provided an opportunity to review the healthcare policies in Southeast Asia and their impact on accurate information during the COVID-19 pandemic. Combined with the presentation and discussion from session one “Infodemic and SDGs: Internet Freedoms in Southeast Asia”, it is clear that the COVID-19 infodemic has severely impacted internet freedoms and restricted access to accurate information. Asia Centre’s newly released report “Infodemic and SDGs: Internet Freedoms in Southeast Asia”, can be downloaded here and is the second Asia Centre report published in collaboration with the Thai Media Fund. The first report, “Hate Speech in Southeast Asia: New Forms, Old Rules” available here was published in July 2020 and was our first collaboration. The first event writeup for session one of the event, a report launch entitled “Infodemic and SDGs: Internet Freedoms in Southeast Asia”, can be accessed here Asia Centre works on issues related to freedom of expression. If you would like to collaborate with the Centre on evidence-based research, co-coveneing activities or other projects. Send an expression of interest to contact@asiacentre.org https://youtu.be/i–LU_4fiW0
“Infodemic” Infringes Right to Accurate Information
Large amounts of false or misleading information related to the COVID-19 pandemic, referred to as an “infodemic”, and the attempts to combat it, have actually infringed on the right to accurate information. Additionally, framing the “infodemic” as purely citizen-induced, a premise that wholly excludes government accountability, further exacerbates the infringement. This critical point was articulated during the launch of “Infodemic and SDGs: Internet Freedoms in Southeast Asia”, an Asia Centre report in collaboration with the Thai Media Fund. The launch was the first of a two-part event, “Human Rights in the Time of COVID-19: Lessons Learned from Southeast Asia” held on Friday 20th August. The event was co-convened by Asia Centre and the Faculty of Political Science of Ubon Ratchathani University. It was supported by the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy (TFD), the Thai Media Fund (TMF) and the Empowering Freedom Defenders in East and Southeast Asia (EFDEA). Dr. Robin Ramcharan, Executive Director of Asia Centre, introduced the event and speakers, and thereafter went on to outline how the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals of 9.c (Access to the Internet) and 16.10 (1&2), (Fundamental Freedoms and Access to Information) are essential indicators with which to measure the infodemic’s consequences and impacts. Dr. Titipol Phakdeewanich, Director, Regional Centre for Human Rights Study and Coordination at the Faculty of Political Science, also welcomed the speakers and guests. He pointed out the significant challenges that COVID-19 has brought about. He emphasised that it is now all the more important to host these online sessions, so that we can continue to discuss issues that affect citizens’ human rights, particularly rights for the vulnerable and marginalised. In her opening speech, Ms. Pornprapai Ganjanarintr, Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand highlighted the need to set up effective national measures for human rights protections in alignment with international standards. This step should also include increased collaboration and consultations with INGOs and CSOs in order to further streamline and enforce human rights guarantees and standards. Dr. James Gomez, Regional Director of Asia Centre, kicked off the presentation of the key findings of Asia Centre’s seminal report “Infodemic” and SDGs: Internet Freedoms in Southeast Asia”. Contextualising the report, he said COVID-19 has spurred an ‘infodemic’ that impacts the right to accurate information. Further, given that information is largely being shared over the internet and social media, we need to consider internet freedoms. Gleaning examples from fact-checking initiatives and institutions, Asia Centre found that the ‘infodemic’ of false or misleading information, comprised 4 primary categories:1. Virus Origin – Unsubstantiated hypotheses, namely that the virus was bioengineered in a Wuhan Laboratory or that it originated from the U.S., and was created in exchange for material benefits, or to distract citizens from other political issues.2. COVID-19 Infection and Death Numbers – speculation of possible, unconfirmed or underreported clusters of cases or death resulting from the virus, as well as what type of person is more likely to be a virus carrier. 3. Bogus Remedies – Unproven cures for the virus. Claims concern the use of local herbs, traditional medicines, or even religious or magical rituals4. Vaccine Efficacy – False information over reactions to different types of vaccines or their long term effects. This also includes false reports of vaccine provisions by hospitals and other agencies. Contrary to the statist narrative emerging from governments across Southeast Asia, Dr Gomez brought to light how national and local governments and officials have also been key instigators of the infodemic. Authorities have consistently underreported and denied the presence of COVID-19 in their country or local area, in efforts to save face and prevent backlash from the general population. They have also overstated vaccine production and provisions. False information such as this has the real potential to seriously endanger vulnerable groups. This fact however, is not reflected in legislation, with governments enacting new laws that focus almost exclusively on citizens, disregarding the need for their own accountability. Within Southeast Asia, governments responded to this infodemic phenomenon, by utilising ‘fake news’ clauses in various legal provisions to deliver heavy collateral damage on freedom of expression. Asia Centre’s report utilises the SDGs, specifically 9.c and 16.10 relating to access to information and internet freedoms, to help measure the impact of the new legislation that has been ostensibly implemented to combat the ‘infodemic’. It found that the newly enacted laws allow incumbent parties to censor debate, criminalise and withhold access to information, severely regressing the overall state of internet freedoms in the region. Violation of these vague and broad laws, consists of arrests, harassment, and heavily disproportionate legal penalties. The net result is that the suppression of internet freedoms, has led to a suppression of accurate information. Dr. Sirinbhattra Sathabhornwong, Lecturer in Public Policy and Local Government at Ubon Ratchathani University, echoing the report, presented sobering figures highlighting the limited press and expression freedom in Southeast Asia, which COVID-19 has only served to decline. Reinforcing some of Dr Gomez’s points, and utilising SDG 16.10 (Access to Information) as the appropriate indicator, she detailed that COVID-19 and its infodemic, has exacerbated the exposure of government tendencies to punish citizens who access sensitive information. This is because they pose a threat to the state sponsored narrative. There were several questions raised after the report presentation and discussion. The full details of the report launch session can be viewed here In wrapping up the 1st session of the event, Dr Gomez stated that in his opinion, media literacy is the primary “vaccine” and solution for the infodemic. If the strengthening of media literacy can occur, individuals will be able to navigate online safely and make well-informed decisions about their veracity. However, in advocating for media literacy, one should be mindful of those favouring their own perspectives. Asia Centre’s newly released report “Infodemic and SDGs: Internet Freedoms in Southeast Asia”, can be downloaded here and is the second Asia Centre report published in collaboration with the Thai Media Fund. The first report, “Hate Speech in Southeast Asia: New Forms, Old Rules” available
Asia Centre and Destination Justice Sign MOU
Asia Centre and Destination Justice signed a Memorandum of Understanding on 4 July 2021. This MoU marks the start of the organisations’ collaboration on Thailand related projects, starting in 2021 and builds on 5 year of prior cooperation on regional issues. On 28 July 2021, Asia Centre and Destination Justice, together with other partners filed a submission: “Protection of Human Rights in the Context of Peaceful Protests During Crisis Situations” to the Special Rapporteur on the Freedom of Assembly and of Association. The submission draws attention to the protection of human rights activists and protesters in the context of crisis and emergency situations and the ensuing limitations to freedom of movement. The submission follows an op-ed “Thailand faces the spotlight on human rights” which was published in the Bangkok Post on 23 July 2021. In that piece both Asia Centre and Destination Justice highlighted the human rights situation of activists and protesters in Thailand, particularly to the very stringent bail conditions they were being subjected to. Earlier on 23 February 2021, Asia Centre contributed and co-sponsored a joint UPR Submission together with Destination Justice, “Human Rights Defenders and Fundamental Freedoms in Thailand” on 24 March 2021. The submission focuses on human rights defenders (HRDs) ranging from first-time protesters through to seasoned human rights advocates. The submission details how fundamental freedoms have been eroded in Thailand, particularly under the COVID-19 related emergency rule. In the Thai pipeline is a briefing note on the proposed Thai Supporting and Promoting Civil Society Organisation Act (SPCSO) and Law on Operations of Non-for-profit Organisation (LONGO), both aim to strengthen government control over local, regional and international CSOs and NGOs. Asia Centre and Destination Justice plan to study these laws and assess their alignment with international standards. This MoU also formalizes pre-existing collaboration between the two organizations: In August 2019, Asia Centre’s Dr. James Gomez met with Doreen Chen, Director of Destination Justice, met on the sidelines of the International Conference on Protection of Rohingya Survivors and Accountability for Genocide at Sogang University, South Korea. Thereafter, both organisations were part of a coalition that drew attention to and called for the boycott of businesses that collaborate with the Myanmar military. However cooperation between the two organisations began in 2016, when Céline Martin, then Destination Justice’s Litigation Program Coordinator based in Cambodia, participated in the Centre’s 1st International Conference of Asia Centre: Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in Southeast Asia, An Evidence-Based Regional Assessment. Ms. Martin subsequently participated as a speaker for Asia Centre’s 2nd and 3rd International Conferences on National human rights Mechanisms in Southeast Asia: Challenges of Protection (2017) and Business and human rights: Holding Governments Accountable in Asia (2018). Moving from the 3 international conferences in Bangkok, Destination Justice and Asia Centre had extended their collaboration into Cambodia on the Universal Periodic Review by co-convening a seminar entitled “Advocating for human rights in Cambodia: Is the Universal Periodic Review Effective?” on 3 November 2018, at the National University of management in Phnom Penh. On the occasion of the seminar, Asia Centre released its first book: The Universal Periodic Review of Southeast Asia: Civil Society Perspectives, in which Destination Justice has authored one chapter. Asia Centre signs MOUs with organisations with whom it has a track record of cooperation.The Centre has several ongoing MOUs with INGOs, NGOs, universities and parliamentary networks.
Timor-Leste’s Problematic “Internet” Laws
Timor-Leste’s government must set out clearly defined steps in the drafting process of its legislation, including ensuring there are consistent and adequate opportunities for consultation with the country’s stakeholders. These concerns over inadequate consultation have arisen on the back of three proposed laws on defamation, cybercrime and privacy that stand to impact internet freedoms. The draft Criminal Defamation Law, proposed in June 2020, would reinstate criminal defamation in Timor-Leste’s Penal Code and provide an easy path to criminalise critical opinions against the state or its officials. The draft Cybercrime Law, proposed in January 2021, does not provide adequate protection to human rights defenders who call out rights violations by accessing online data, and poses concerns for data privacy and protection due to its vague nature. While the draft Data Privacy and Protection Law is not publicly available as of 14 July 2021, its provisions must prioritise the protection of citizens’ right to privacy. These “internet” laws are seen as likely to be used to reel online political expression as the country experiences increased internet connectivity and a rise in the use of social media to progress democratic ideals. The sharp scrutiny of government figures and critical debate on digital platforms has resulted in a push for legislation that can be used to crack down on criticism. These were the key issues aired during Asia Centre’s report launch “Timor-Leste: Internet Freedoms Under Threat” held on 14th July 2021, where the Centre shared its report findings on the impact of these laws on the state of internet freedoms in Timor. (watch here). Dr. Ramcharan, Executive Director at Asia Centre in his opening remarks to signify the report launch, made reference to the French Bastille Day – on the same day as this event. He said that this flashpoint of the French revolution had a significant and lasting impact on freedom of expression in France, paving the way for increased political debate and critique. The internet, Dr. Ramcharan added, is the needle that has moved the political debate in contemporary Timor. Dr. James Gomez, Regional Director at Asia Centre, then went on to present the findings of the report. He detailed the impacts that current legislation has upon digital freedom, and the concerns and potential impacts that the new draft laws may have on freedom of expression. The report also provides specific recommendations, enabling the promotion and protection of internet freedoms, freedom of expression and access to information online in Timor-Leste. Contextualising the report, he said that in order to understand the full gravity of the recent legislative developments in Timor, one should look at Southeast Asia as a whole and draw lessons from its experiences. Dr. Gomez directed the audience to examples within the Centre’s other report: Myanmar: Dismantling Dissent – Crackdowns on Internet Freedoms, where it displays that unscrupulous operators in critical sectors such as telecommunications are uncongenial for fostering democracy. Nukila Evanty, Executive Director of the Women’s Working Group, addressed internet freedoms through a gender lens. She highlighted that women and girls everywhere, including in Timor-Leste, continue to face discrimination online. The low affordability of smartphones continues to make internet access difficult for them. However, women are still more active on social media compared to their male counterparts, particularly with the running of small businesses and activism. The elimination of barriers of inequality should be prioritised to enable increased involvement of women in public and political participation. Marta Da Silva, researcher at La’o Hamutuk, highlighted the need for greater consultation with civil society in relation to the legislative drafting process. This however, comes with an issue of language accessibility. Many Timorese do not understand Portuguese, the sole language of parliament, creating a conspicuous information void and making political participation difficult for the majority. She noted that digital security is also a concern. As the country’s critical infrastructure opens up to foreign direct investment, people’s rights to privacy needs assurance, and the government needs to find the means to effectively implement these safeguards. She ended with a call for the promotion of a safe internet space through a ban on pornography and disturbing or graphic images. She believes such a ban would be a good step in preventing sexual assault, online bullying and harrassment. Adilson da Costa Junior, Strategic and Engagement Lead of Oxfam in Timor-Leste, expounded on the need to align the implementation of internet and media freedom-related legislation with transparency and human rights mechanisms. da Costa further elaborated on how the agenda-setting priorities by the government of the day would determine when these internet freedom-infringing laws would be implemented. Legislation is a valuable political tool, it is feasible that the shelved draft defamation law will be passed eventually, as the political impetus exists. Dr Gomez concluded the discussion. Again, while speaking from a regional angle, he made reference to Timor’s continued pursuit of accession to the ASEAN. The authoritarian-heavy nature of the group could potentially compromise Timor’s protection of human rights and internet freedoms, given the groupings’ poor performance in these issues. He emphasised that the implementation of the draft legislation in its current form, risks Timor’s internet freedoms staining the country’s democratic identity. To ensure that Timor protects itself from enacting unjust “internet” legislation and other laws, it needs to clearly signpost the processes for proposed laws. Transparent communication and consultation with civil society and other stakeholders should be at the heart of this process. Asia Centre’s newly-released report “Timor-Leste: Internet Freedoms Under Threat” can be downloaded from (here) and is a part of a series of reports on the state of internet freedoms that include Myanmar and Cambodia Asia Centre works on issues related to freedom of expression. If you like to collaborate with the Centre on evidence-based research, co-coveneing activities or other projects. Send an expression of interest to contact@asiacentre.org
Securitisation of Health Protocols: Impact on Vulnerable Communities
In responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, governments across the Asian region have adopted (exceptional) health protocols to contain and arrest the spread of infections, and are now focusing on acquiring vaccines and rolling vaccination programmes. Many of the measures adopted have been characterised by a securitisation of health protocols and have either failed to address the specific needs of vulnerable communities, or worsened their already precarious conditions. To facilitate discussions on these trends, and identify avenues for positive change, on 18 June 2021 Asia Centre, Harm Reduction International (HRI) and UNITE Global Parliamentarians Network to End Infectious Diseases (UNITE) co-hosted a closed peer-to-peer event, “The management of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Asia Pacific Region: good practices and lessons learned”. The meeting featured Ministers and Members of Parliament from Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, Nepal Pakistan, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam who were briefed by WHO officials, experts, and civil society. The aim was to reflect on the various COVID-19 responses and share lessons learned through comparing the experiences and challenges faced by each country. Speaking about the importance of enhancing accountability within the implementation of health protocols, Ajeng Larasati, HRI Human Rights Lead, emphasised the need for countries to discuss and adapt best policies and practices from one another, highlighting the various roles which governments, parliaments, and enforcement authorities have in ensuring just and effective health protocol implementation. In her opening remarks, Dr Adeeba Kamarulzaman of the World Health Assembly Science Council outlined the critical need for the alignment of health protocol with evidence-based and rights-centred research. Dr Kamarulzaman pointed out that amidst an epidemic, the disproportionate effects on health and economic viability are made even more pronounced. Against a backdrop of the backsliding of human rights and the Sustainable Development Goals, the development of health-oriented and multi-stakeholder strategies are imperative in ameliorating the crisis at hand. Dr Tamano Matsui, World Health Organisation’s Programme area manager for health emergency information and risk assessment, provided an overview of the state of the pandemic 18 months after its emergence. Dr Matsui noted that the resurgence of cases can be attributed, among others, to countries’ early lifting of control measures and the development of variants, thus underscoring the need for proper border legislation to mitigate the importation of virus variants. Moving forward, countries must focus on strengthening their detection and response capacities, as well as integrating non-pharmaceutical action within protocols. Dr Nina Sun, Deputy Director of the Jonathan Mann Global Health and Human Rights Initiative at the Drexel University Dornsife School of Public Health, evaluated the compliance of public health emergency responses across the world with human rights standards. A key concern was a widespread lack of judicial review of emergency measures which has contributed to perpetuating discrimination within health protocol implementation, resulting in the poor public health results, as well as negative social justice and human rights impacts. Dr Sun underscored that rights and people-centred approaches are crucial to the overall success of health policies, and thus moving forward, advocated for the integration of science and community needs within the response framework. Dr James Gomez, Asia Centre’s Regional Director, elaborated on how the pandemic has been increasingly treated as a public security rather than a public health threat. Anticipating the findings of the upcoming Asia Centre’s report, “The Securitisation of COVID-19 Health Protocols: Policing the Vulnerable, Infringing their Rights”, Dr Gomez paused on three main securitisation models: militarised, securitised and blended civil response. Presenting data from Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Sri Lanka, he underlined how both securitisation and data surveillance potentially infringe on privacy rights of citizens, and underlined the need for enhanced support directed towards vulnerable groups. The presentations were followed by an exchange of experiences and lessons learned among Ministers and Parliamentarians. Representatives of Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, Nepal Pakistan, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam, Ministers and Members of Parliament (MPs) highlighted the adoption of similar health and social distancing protocols, including border controls, quarantine, curfews and lockdowns. Acknowledging the imperative for a people and community-centred approach in tackling the virus, they also surfaced the pressing need for existing gaps within healthcare systems to be addressed, including hospital vacancy and oxygen provision. Consensus was also reached that a multi-stakeholder task force is necessary in ensuring the proper integration of health leadership and government accountability within protocol implementation, as well as in enhancing the country’s readiness capacity. Additionally, Parliamentarians underscored the urgency of complementing preparedness measures with the long-term solution of vaccination programmes. Ministers and MPs alike pleaded with the international community to ensure equitable vaccine distribution. In spite of having the financial capability to procure vaccines, most cited supply disruptions and ‘vaccine apartheids’, resulting in relatively low vaccination rates in the Asian region. Moreover, in larger countries, inherent gaps within vaccine administering have caused wide inequalities and civic instability. Lastly, within pandemic protocol frameworks, support for vulnerable groups was highlighted as an imperative in ensuring the success of health policies. In light of the pandemic that has exerted a disproportionate effect onto the vulnerable, representatives agreed that extensive protection must be provided. It was also established that enhanced support for the vulnerable would mitigate the spread of the virus. Thus, overall government accountability during declarations of state-of-emergencies was also reinforced during the discussion. The roundtable discussion emphasised the importance of having a multi-stakeholder and community-centred health approach backed by science and evidence-based research. In handling the pandemic, governments must enhance the preparedness of their healthcare systems, provide enhanced support towards the vulnerable and engage in global collaborative efforts that enhance the equitable distribution of vaccines. As a prelude to the full report, The Securitisation of COVID-19 Health Protocols: Policing the Vulnerable, Infringing their Rights, Asia Centre and Harm Reduction International have published an advance briefing note, Waging War Against COVID-19: The Securitisation of the Health Response in Five Asian Countries
Timor Leste Risks Downgrading Freedoms With New Laws
Amidst recent pushback to protect internet freedoms, it remains to be seen if Timor-Leste will retain its high rankings in “freedoms” in the long-term, as the country seeks membership in ASEAN, a grouping whose freedom rankings exhibit a sharp decline. While the country ranks highly in terms of academic and press freedom, with internet freedom likely to be on a similar upward trajectory, access to the internet and emerging laws present a challenge. These were the broad assertions made during an online town hall titled “Timor-Leste: Internet Freedoms Under Threat” held on 4 June 2021 by Asia Centre to share its preliminary findings on internet freedoms in Timor and Southeast Asia (watch here) and gather feedback and recommendations in preparation of Timor-Leste ‘s Third Cycle UPR submission. A key challenge to realising internet freedoms in Timor-Leste is its telecommunication infrastructure. With cable connections limited, signals unstable and access expensive in part as a result of limited competition among service providers, there is a correlation between the state of infrastructure and ensuring better access to information. Timor-Leste is currently expanding its internet and cable infrastructure and has approved connecting to Australia’s network at an estimated cost of between 40 to 60 million ($USD). The majority of Timor’s citizens rely on the cellular network to access the internet, however the cost is incredibly high relative to the Gross National Income of its citizens. For example, a block of 10GB of Mobile Broadband Data is USD $25 in Timor with a GNI (PPP adjusted) of $4,970, while in Indonesia it is $6.75 and $11,970 respectively. Overall, the cost of accessing the Internet in Timor-leste is the highest in Southeast Asia by a significant margin. Yet as internet connectivity improves in Timor, the question of whether the country will follow the path of its ASEAN neighbours in restricting internet freedoms, or continue on her democratic trajectory remains. Improving telecommunications infrastructure and accessibility in Timor-Leste has led to the rise of the internet being used to express opinion, scrutinise political incumbents and progress democratic ideals. While Article 40 and 41 provide guarantees on freedom of expression, there is a push in Timor-Leste to reinstitute criminal defamation through draft laws in 2020 (Criminal Defamation) and 2021 (Cybercrime Bill). These laws, primarily articulated by those criticised authorities, seem to be aimed at curbing any just critique or debate. Often, the reasons behind these draft laws have been articulated either by those who feel hurtful, or were not used to the level of transparency and accountability required for an office holder; rather than for the benefit of the community as whole. While the draft law on criminal defamation faced pushbacks from civil society actors and the general populace and appears to be on hold at the moment. The sentiment in Timor that these laws will be implemented is strong. With increasing internet use, issues of data protection are an emerging concern. While Constitutional provisions are present to protect personal data and privacy in Articles 36, 37 and 38, they are considered insufficient. There is a need to ensure that personal data collected is not misused to persecute individuals who share critical opinions of the state, and that data is not shared without permission, as it has done by its ASEAN neighbours. Data protection measures implemented should focus on the rights of individuals, with strong independent oversight mechanisms. It is expected that Timor-Leste will examine new Data Protection laws, however, if we look across Southeast Asia, this trend of legislating against critics is further entrenching and empowering the authoritarian regime. Something that Timor-Leste needs to avoid. Increased internet access has unfortunately resulted in the proliferation of the traditional yet negative cultural notions with which women are generally viewed in Timorese society, for example domestic violence is sadly considered by both men and women as an acceptable form of discipline. This attitude has manifested online in rising hate speech and threats of violence against young girls and women. Laws to protect women and other vulnerable groups on the internet need to be in place and strengthened. Additionally, digital and media literacy in public institutions such as schools and universities should be a matter of priority in order to tackle the issue at the root, particularly against the backdrop of growing internet usage and connectivity in Timor. Timor’s efforts to improve connectivity and introduce new legislation that may curb freedom of expression is a struggle over its own values that led to its independence. Yet, in pursuing accession to ASEAN, an organisation dominated by authoritarian states, the emergence of these proposed draft laws is a concerning hint at Timor-Leste’s new conflict with its own democratic identity. Resistance from civil society groups has been encouraging, yet based on trends in the region it is not difficult to envisage the end result will be a less democratic Timor. Time will tell. As Timor-Leste aspires to be part of ASEAN, it needs to ask itself a hard question whether it wants to join the authoritarian club and behave the same. The event, which was live-streamed, occasionally intervened by representatives from the Timor ICT department and attended by participants from Timor-Leste and Australia, is part of a series of consultations to gather feedback on the Asia Centre’s report on internet freedoms in the country. Asia Centre works on issues related to freedom of expression. If you like to collaborate with the Centre on evidence-based research, co-coveneing activities or other projects. Send an expression of interest to contact@asiacentre.org